Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Warcraft (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in 1994, I fondly remember playing Warcraft on my PC as well as the fun of connecting with a friend over a dial up modem for hours of fun. Blizzard’s online matchmaking portal also served as a source of countless chatrooms in the pre-internet days and through the two sequels and add on packs that followed as well as the huge success of World of Warcraft, the name Warcraft came to symbolize quality and fun to millions of fans the world over.
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/
The feature film is directed by Duncan Jones who replaced Sam Raimi in pre-production years ago, and follows the arrival or the Orcs into Azeroth and the battle that erupts as the humans try to stop this invading force. An evil energy source is compelling the actions of a power obsessed Orc and he is obsessed with destroying the humans to find a new home for his people which is no longer inhabitable thanks to said dark magic.
There are the usual collection of wizards, warriors, love interest, heroes, and villains that one would expect in a fantasy adventure but there are many elements that simply do not work. From poor casting choices to a story that is weak even by video game standards the movie just does not live up to what one expects form a summer blockbuster especially one with a name associated with quality. It is shocking to me that the studio thought the casting choices were appropriate for the film as there is no star power at all and no chemistry at all between any of the performers. It is almost as if some executives figured since their kids play Warcraft and they know people who play Warcraft, then this will be a huge hit as everyone will flock to it. Yes, but the salad days of the franchise are behind it as World of Warcraft does not have the subscriber bases it once had. Three to Five years ago would have been a great time for the film but for now it is too late and far to lacking. I am sure fans will see it for curiosity sake and it may open well, but I do not see it having much staying power and as what is supposed to be the first film in a planned series, I am not sure that I want to see much more of it which is sad as I am a fan of the games and I liked that the visuals of the film matched much of the quality artwork of the games.
The action scenes for the film are entertaining enough and they do have a good degree of visual appeal but they just do not have any intensity or compulsion to them and with the disjointed plot and sub par acting, it really makes it hard to get caught up in the outcome. One segment was indicating an epic battle was to come and it was resolved in seconds which really invalidated much of the events leading up to it.
Sadly the first cinematic offering for the franchise is not going to be the landmark event that the arrival of the previous games have been as it plays out like a big budget fan film with solid special effects but a plodding and stale story, bad acting, and a no-name cast who cannot even decide what accent they are using from scene to scene. I half expected Crow and Tom Servo to pop up in the corner and add their commentary especially during the ridiculous “Moses Scene” which was so indicative of the slapdash nature of the film.
http://sknr.net/2016/06/08/warcraft/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In Good Company (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Carter Duryea (Topher Grace) is a man with goals. At 26, he is heading his mega-companies cell phone sales, and is being groomed for bigger and better things. A golden opportunity is handed to Carter when his company acquires another mega company resulting in his placement in the recently acquired Sports magazine division.
The Sports publication is seen as the jewel of the newly acquired company, and even though he has zero experience with selling magazine advertisement, Carter is sure he can meet the lofty goals he boss has set.
At what should be his greatest moment, carter is troubled as his 7-month marriage to Kimberly (Selma Blair), is falling apart largely due to his workaholic nature and his inability ever to stop thinking or talking about work even when he is on vacation.
On the other side of the spectrum from Carter is Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), a father of two daughters and devoted family man, who has been a salesperson at the magazine for twenty years and until the arrival of Carter, head of the department. At 51, Dan is feeling his years as the younger and ambitious Carter seems to be his polar opposite as well as a reminder that his best years may be behind him. Further complicating matters is that Dan’s wife Ann (Marg Helgenberger), is pregnant with their third child at a time when they both thought children were past them.
Despite their differences, Dan and Carter work with one another, despite conflicts over issues ranging the future of the company to planned layoffs of staff personally picked years ago by Dan. One day after inviting himself to dinner at Dan’s home, Carter meets Dan’s college aged daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson), who although only 21 catches the eye of Carter.
Months later a chance meeting between Alex and the recently divorced Carter gives rise to a friendship/romance between the two that causes Carter to question his life and envy the family life Dan has been able to create and maintain over the years.
Naturally Dan would not approve of the relationship between carter and Alex so they must keep this a secret as there is enough tension in the workplace due to the ever changing business dynamics.
What follows is a touching, funny, and at times bittersweet look at life, love, business, and friendship that does a remarkable job of making the characters not only real, but sympathetic as for the most part, there are no bad people in this story, only those who are confused and unsure about life.
The strength in the film is mixed well between a good script, solid direction by Paul Weitz, and solid performances by all the leads. The pacing of the film is perfect as it never seems rushed and does not drag in parts. Even when two characters are having a simple discussion over how to best approach a client, the film always holds your interest. It was refreshing to see a movie that did not take the easy way out and try to wrap everything in a pretty bow at the films end, but rather like life, left new opportunities and directions as possibilities as after all, that is what life is.
There is also a very good message to the film about what is really important in life and the need to have priorities rather than title and position as the real measure of success is happiness, security and love rather than position and material goods.
Easily the best film of 2005 and one of the better films in recent memory..
The Sports publication is seen as the jewel of the newly acquired company, and even though he has zero experience with selling magazine advertisement, Carter is sure he can meet the lofty goals he boss has set.
At what should be his greatest moment, carter is troubled as his 7-month marriage to Kimberly (Selma Blair), is falling apart largely due to his workaholic nature and his inability ever to stop thinking or talking about work even when he is on vacation.
On the other side of the spectrum from Carter is Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), a father of two daughters and devoted family man, who has been a salesperson at the magazine for twenty years and until the arrival of Carter, head of the department. At 51, Dan is feeling his years as the younger and ambitious Carter seems to be his polar opposite as well as a reminder that his best years may be behind him. Further complicating matters is that Dan’s wife Ann (Marg Helgenberger), is pregnant with their third child at a time when they both thought children were past them.
Despite their differences, Dan and Carter work with one another, despite conflicts over issues ranging the future of the company to planned layoffs of staff personally picked years ago by Dan. One day after inviting himself to dinner at Dan’s home, Carter meets Dan’s college aged daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson), who although only 21 catches the eye of Carter.
Months later a chance meeting between Alex and the recently divorced Carter gives rise to a friendship/romance between the two that causes Carter to question his life and envy the family life Dan has been able to create and maintain over the years.
Naturally Dan would not approve of the relationship between carter and Alex so they must keep this a secret as there is enough tension in the workplace due to the ever changing business dynamics.
What follows is a touching, funny, and at times bittersweet look at life, love, business, and friendship that does a remarkable job of making the characters not only real, but sympathetic as for the most part, there are no bad people in this story, only those who are confused and unsure about life.
The strength in the film is mixed well between a good script, solid direction by Paul Weitz, and solid performances by all the leads. The pacing of the film is perfect as it never seems rushed and does not drag in parts. Even when two characters are having a simple discussion over how to best approach a client, the film always holds your interest. It was refreshing to see a movie that did not take the easy way out and try to wrap everything in a pretty bow at the films end, but rather like life, left new opportunities and directions as possibilities as after all, that is what life is.
There is also a very good message to the film about what is really important in life and the need to have priorities rather than title and position as the real measure of success is happiness, security and love rather than position and material goods.
Easily the best film of 2005 and one of the better films in recent memory..
Natacha (374 KP) rated Kings of the Wyld in Books
Sep 29, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was another book that I picked after it was recommended from one of my favourite Youtuber, Holly Heats Books, and as always I wasn't disappointed.
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/
Kings of the Wyld is a "getting out of retirement of one last job" story. A band of five getting back together to save the daughter of one of them. The story is very well written, action-packed with a touch on humour here and there.
Things I liked:
-All the characters are very well written. They all have their own unique voice, personality and they offer something different to the band as well as the story.
-The relationships between all the characters are well crafted. By the end, you know and feel how close this band is and how much they love each other.
-I generally adore when an action/adventure book or movie has just a hint of comic relief without going overboard and turning it into stupid moments. And the author knows exactly when and where to add this little moment of humour to make you laugh without turning the story into ridicule. Love, love that!
-You never get bored. There is always something happening, twists and turns and obstacles being thrown to our heroes, without the story getting repetitive.
-They weren't a lot of twists and most were obvious but one of them I didn't see it coming. Maybe if I had paid more attention I could have seen it coming but I didn't so I was quite surprised.
-The final battle. I spend the entire book wondering how 5 guys will manager to fight a whole army. And the answer wasn't something that I was expecting and it was epic! Maybe with some clichés, like the "final speech to get people to follow you", but they were all so well done!
Things I didn't like:
-The fantasy world contains EVERY creature ever mentioned in fantasy, folk stories, and mythologies. From dragons and orcs to merpeople to vampires and werewolves. Which is amazing and interesting but... because there are so many creatures mentioned some of them are not described maybe because we should know how they look (?) and if you add all the author places and his own fantasy creature some time I got confused and overwhelmed and didn't necessarily know what kind of creature the author is talking about and I couldn't picture the scene properly in my mind.
-Magic has no rules. Which I don't really mind but.... [Spoiler] at some point it was used in a way that kind of put me off. Towards the end, our primary MC loses his hand and I liked the fact that the author didn't shy away from injuring his character but... this was fixed a chapter later with a magic potion that just made his hand grow back. What? Why? And this is where a draw the line on the "magic with no rules". Don't use random magic as a way to "fix" your character because you didn't want them to be hurt after all! Scars are witness to our own story and our past. Those guys went through a crazy adventure they should have scares and injuries, so if one of them loses his hand during a battle why go back on that a chapter later with a convenient magic potion. I was quite mad about that part but it was just a minor part of the story.
Despite a couple of tiny details, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and would highly recommend it. It was one of the best books I've read so far this year.
The review can also be found here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/king-of-the-wyld-by-nicholas-eames/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Midsommar (2019) in Movies
Jul 4, 2019
Director: Ari Aster
Writer: Ari Aster (Screenplay)
Starring: Florence Pugh, Will Poulter, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper, Liv Mjones, Anna Astrom, Julia Ragnarsson
Plot: A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown's fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.
Runtime: 2 Hours 20 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Wicker Man on Acid
Story: Midsommar starts when young lady Dani (Pugh) has her family die suddenly, turning to the only person left in her life, her boyfriend Christian (Reynor) who has started to move away from their relationship. Christian and his friends Josh (Harper), Mark (Poulter) and Pelle (Blomgren) are planning a trip to Pelle’s home in Sweden for a special mid-summer festival.
Christian trying to do the right thing for Dani, invites her along, but it isn’t long before the festival turns into a cultural nightmare for the outsiders who have never seen the customs before.
Thoughts on Midsommar
Characters – Dani is a young lady that has suffered a heart-breaking tragedy in her life, leaving her along in the world, struggle to get over the loss of her family, she is unsure about her relationship with her boyfriend and agrees to go with him on the trip to Sweden. Dani is trying her best to get on with her life, which is seeing her have the good and bad days, while on the commune she starts to relax more in life. Christian is the student boyfriend of Dani, he is starting to question the relationship about to end it before the tragedy strikes, he invites her believing she won’t go, while also hoping to find out whether they should stay together. Josh is a student friend of Christian, who has been working on his paper on different cultures, he sees this event a major part of his studies, only he doesn’t seem to respect enough cultures. Mark is the comic relief, he wants to go to Sweden to meet women, he is quick to turn to drink or drugs, while always putting his foot in it.
Performances – Florence Pugh is the star of the show, she does show the grief required in her role, which shows us how hard to is finding life. Jack Reynor has finished turning his career around after Transformers, with one that must make people take him seriously now. Will Poulter will make you laugh with nearly everything he says, while William Jackson Harper will make you dislike his characters arrogance quickly.
Story – The story here follows a young woman dealing with grief of losing her family, trying to get away from her past by getting away from the world with the festival which soon sees her trapped with her friends with a cult that has strict rules. Much like Hereditary, we are tackling grief on a personal level, unlike Hereditary we find ourselves not seeing a timeline to make us understand the recover process that Dani is trying to go through. The story does have a huge problem for me though, is that this is a story which the people should just walk or run away after seeing the first major incident, not just calmly say ‘sure this is a different culture we should see what happens next’ this is easily one of the biggest let down in any horror. We also do spend way too much time just turning to drugs as an excuse rather than trying to solve the real problems and the students just being arrogant not seemingly wanting to do anything with their lives.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from graphic imaginary that we see from the injuries, we do have tension growing and the make up team should be praised for just how real everything looks. The mystery comes from just what is happening with this cult and what they will do next.
Settings – The film is set in the Swedish countryside away from the world, the only type of place a cult could operate in around the modern day. The sets are the best thing about this film because they are crafted which such love and you can’t help but think everything you see is a clue to what is happening.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do bring us the graphic images of the injuries that people are going through. The make up team work wonders on this film.
Scene of the Movie – Dancing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Just using drugs to explain why these people are friends.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that is set and created wonderfully on the outside, only to fall short on the story which only drags along without reaching any levels of scares.
Overall: Not reaching the potential.
Rating
Writer: Ari Aster (Screenplay)
Starring: Florence Pugh, Will Poulter, Jack Reynor, William Jackson Harper, Liv Mjones, Anna Astrom, Julia Ragnarsson
Plot: A couple travels to Sweden to visit a rural hometown's fabled mid-summer festival. What begins as an idyllic retreat quickly devolves into an increasingly violent and bizarre competition at the hands of a pagan cult.
Runtime: 2 Hours 20 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: The Wicker Man on Acid
Story: Midsommar starts when young lady Dani (Pugh) has her family die suddenly, turning to the only person left in her life, her boyfriend Christian (Reynor) who has started to move away from their relationship. Christian and his friends Josh (Harper), Mark (Poulter) and Pelle (Blomgren) are planning a trip to Pelle’s home in Sweden for a special mid-summer festival.
Christian trying to do the right thing for Dani, invites her along, but it isn’t long before the festival turns into a cultural nightmare for the outsiders who have never seen the customs before.
Thoughts on Midsommar
Characters – Dani is a young lady that has suffered a heart-breaking tragedy in her life, leaving her along in the world, struggle to get over the loss of her family, she is unsure about her relationship with her boyfriend and agrees to go with him on the trip to Sweden. Dani is trying her best to get on with her life, which is seeing her have the good and bad days, while on the commune she starts to relax more in life. Christian is the student boyfriend of Dani, he is starting to question the relationship about to end it before the tragedy strikes, he invites her believing she won’t go, while also hoping to find out whether they should stay together. Josh is a student friend of Christian, who has been working on his paper on different cultures, he sees this event a major part of his studies, only he doesn’t seem to respect enough cultures. Mark is the comic relief, he wants to go to Sweden to meet women, he is quick to turn to drink or drugs, while always putting his foot in it.
Performances – Florence Pugh is the star of the show, she does show the grief required in her role, which shows us how hard to is finding life. Jack Reynor has finished turning his career around after Transformers, with one that must make people take him seriously now. Will Poulter will make you laugh with nearly everything he says, while William Jackson Harper will make you dislike his characters arrogance quickly.
Story – The story here follows a young woman dealing with grief of losing her family, trying to get away from her past by getting away from the world with the festival which soon sees her trapped with her friends with a cult that has strict rules. Much like Hereditary, we are tackling grief on a personal level, unlike Hereditary we find ourselves not seeing a timeline to make us understand the recover process that Dani is trying to go through. The story does have a huge problem for me though, is that this is a story which the people should just walk or run away after seeing the first major incident, not just calmly say ‘sure this is a different culture we should see what happens next’ this is easily one of the biggest let down in any horror. We also do spend way too much time just turning to drugs as an excuse rather than trying to solve the real problems and the students just being arrogant not seemingly wanting to do anything with their lives.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from graphic imaginary that we see from the injuries, we do have tension growing and the make up team should be praised for just how real everything looks. The mystery comes from just what is happening with this cult and what they will do next.
Settings – The film is set in the Swedish countryside away from the world, the only type of place a cult could operate in around the modern day. The sets are the best thing about this film because they are crafted which such love and you can’t help but think everything you see is a clue to what is happening.
Special Effects – The effects in the film do bring us the graphic images of the injuries that people are going through. The make up team work wonders on this film.
Scene of the Movie – Dancing.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Just using drugs to explain why these people are friends.
Final Thoughts – This is a horror that is set and created wonderfully on the outside, only to fall short on the story which only drags along without reaching any levels of scares.
Overall: Not reaching the potential.
Rating
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Annabelle Comes Home (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
God help me I don't know why I went to see this.
The Warrens have contained Annabelle, her influence is safely blocked by a box crafted from sacred glass and they've locked her up in their artefact room. A year goes by without incident, but when their babysitter's friend visits unannounced, curious and looking for answers, the relative peace of the house is shattered.
Daniela unwittingly unleashes Annabelle's power onto the house and the three of them inside. The spirits in the Warren's basement are gradually escaping and coming out to play.
While me and horror don't mix, I do occasionally like the idea behind some of them. A story about objects with power like Annabelle Comes Home really appealed to me as I'm a fan of this sort of supernatural malarkey. As such, I decided to suck it up and be brave. I'm mainly glad I gave it a go... mainly.
This is the first horror film I have ever seen that has had any effect on me after seeing it. Most I just forget about and move on to the next, Annabelle Comes Home really messed with me though. I got up in the night and when I got back to bed I thought about it for the briefest moment and spent the next hour with the light on scrolling through Pinterest. Even when watching it at the cinema there were genuine moments where I was scared, not just the jumping out of my seat kind. Actually, I was impressed that it didn't just rely on the jump scare as a way of getting to its audience. More movies are doing that these days and it just feels like a very cheap way of trying for horror.
The scares here were much more... subtle... but subtle is absolutely not the right words. What I mean is that they were crafted in a much better and natural way than something popping out and screaming in your face. There is a moment with the bride where the shot genuinely moves so swiftly that it's almost inducing panic in you because you can't quite work out what's happening.
All of the spirits in the house are incredibly well done visually. The Ferryman in particular is very effective, it's amazing how something as simple as the sound of coins can add to the tension. When I said "all" at the beginning of this paragraph I did overstate slightly, there's one exception. Sadly Bob (our bit part love interest) is stuck outside trying to fend off a werewolf. I feel like the chances are high that he was designed for a Scooby Doo movie that was never produced. It's got a slightly cartoonish quality to it and when you add in the excess of rolling fog it becomes the least believable of all the unbelievable things.
Speaking of Bob, as a character, while adorable, does feel out of place as well. But the addition of this lighter storyline probably saved me from having a complete breakdown right in the cinema.
Daniela, the girl who can't read warning labels, left me annoyed. She's curious and looking for answers but it also feels like she's not convinced that the Warrens are for real. Either way, why would you play with the thing that is not only inside a locked room, but inside a locked box inside the locked room and has a very clear sign saying not to open it? Surely the only thing that's inside the box apart from a creepy doll and a chair is eternal damnation.
I thought that Madison Iseman as the babysitter Mary Ellen was a really good call in this. She's incredibly believable throughout and managed not to overact. Let's face it, there's always a strong chance of that in horror.
Finding out that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson were barely in it was extremely disappointing. They're both good actors with a host of top roles under their belts and I'd been looking forward to seeing them on screen together. Once the set up is done though it's over to the younger cast members as Ed and Lorraine Warren go off on a trip. They do appear later in the film, but only after the action's conclusion to participate in the bizarrely conceived ending.
Mckenna Grace managed to deal with some of the creepy moments really well but I didn't feel like there was really much for her to do. Everything was very much guided by Mary Ellen and Daniela, and when she did get a moment on the screen it was swiftly snatched away by something else. Potentially by design I guess, but there wasn't much chance to make the role come alive.
I've not seen any of the other films in this franchise, and honestly, probably won't now. If someone who has could tell me if the others are as formulaic as this one I would appreciate it. I'm not saying formulaic is bad, sometimes knowing what's coming is easier to deal with, I'm sure it really helped me with this film. Near the beginning we have a sequence that gives you a checklist of things to wait for. Would I have stuck it out if I hadn't known what to look out for? Would some of those things scared me enough to leave? We'll never know.
I'm glad I managed to stick with it, the idea had been what really intrigued me and I feel like that came through well. Despite other issues with predictability and characters I actually enjoyed this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/annabelle-comes-home-movie-review.html
The Warrens have contained Annabelle, her influence is safely blocked by a box crafted from sacred glass and they've locked her up in their artefact room. A year goes by without incident, but when their babysitter's friend visits unannounced, curious and looking for answers, the relative peace of the house is shattered.
Daniela unwittingly unleashes Annabelle's power onto the house and the three of them inside. The spirits in the Warren's basement are gradually escaping and coming out to play.
While me and horror don't mix, I do occasionally like the idea behind some of them. A story about objects with power like Annabelle Comes Home really appealed to me as I'm a fan of this sort of supernatural malarkey. As such, I decided to suck it up and be brave. I'm mainly glad I gave it a go... mainly.
This is the first horror film I have ever seen that has had any effect on me after seeing it. Most I just forget about and move on to the next, Annabelle Comes Home really messed with me though. I got up in the night and when I got back to bed I thought about it for the briefest moment and spent the next hour with the light on scrolling through Pinterest. Even when watching it at the cinema there were genuine moments where I was scared, not just the jumping out of my seat kind. Actually, I was impressed that it didn't just rely on the jump scare as a way of getting to its audience. More movies are doing that these days and it just feels like a very cheap way of trying for horror.
The scares here were much more... subtle... but subtle is absolutely not the right words. What I mean is that they were crafted in a much better and natural way than something popping out and screaming in your face. There is a moment with the bride where the shot genuinely moves so swiftly that it's almost inducing panic in you because you can't quite work out what's happening.
All of the spirits in the house are incredibly well done visually. The Ferryman in particular is very effective, it's amazing how something as simple as the sound of coins can add to the tension. When I said "all" at the beginning of this paragraph I did overstate slightly, there's one exception. Sadly Bob (our bit part love interest) is stuck outside trying to fend off a werewolf. I feel like the chances are high that he was designed for a Scooby Doo movie that was never produced. It's got a slightly cartoonish quality to it and when you add in the excess of rolling fog it becomes the least believable of all the unbelievable things.
Speaking of Bob, as a character, while adorable, does feel out of place as well. But the addition of this lighter storyline probably saved me from having a complete breakdown right in the cinema.
Daniela, the girl who can't read warning labels, left me annoyed. She's curious and looking for answers but it also feels like she's not convinced that the Warrens are for real. Either way, why would you play with the thing that is not only inside a locked room, but inside a locked box inside the locked room and has a very clear sign saying not to open it? Surely the only thing that's inside the box apart from a creepy doll and a chair is eternal damnation.
I thought that Madison Iseman as the babysitter Mary Ellen was a really good call in this. She's incredibly believable throughout and managed not to overact. Let's face it, there's always a strong chance of that in horror.
Finding out that Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson were barely in it was extremely disappointing. They're both good actors with a host of top roles under their belts and I'd been looking forward to seeing them on screen together. Once the set up is done though it's over to the younger cast members as Ed and Lorraine Warren go off on a trip. They do appear later in the film, but only after the action's conclusion to participate in the bizarrely conceived ending.
Mckenna Grace managed to deal with some of the creepy moments really well but I didn't feel like there was really much for her to do. Everything was very much guided by Mary Ellen and Daniela, and when she did get a moment on the screen it was swiftly snatched away by something else. Potentially by design I guess, but there wasn't much chance to make the role come alive.
I've not seen any of the other films in this franchise, and honestly, probably won't now. If someone who has could tell me if the others are as formulaic as this one I would appreciate it. I'm not saying formulaic is bad, sometimes knowing what's coming is easier to deal with, I'm sure it really helped me with this film. Near the beginning we have a sequence that gives you a checklist of things to wait for. Would I have stuck it out if I hadn't known what to look out for? Would some of those things scared me enough to leave? We'll never know.
I'm glad I managed to stick with it, the idea had been what really intrigued me and I feel like that came through well. Despite other issues with predictability and characters I actually enjoyed this film.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/annabelle-comes-home-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftershock (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftershock starts as Gringo (Roth), Ariel (Levy) and Pollo (Martinez) travelling around Chile, they party over all night where they meet three girls Monica (Osvart), Irina (Yarovenko) and Kylie (Izzo). Going for one last party the six new friends find themselves in the middle of an earthquake, one seriously injured and an impending tsunami heading towards them.
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
The friends must race against time in a country none of them call home to make it out alive but the natural disaster isn’t the only threat when the prison is damaged leading to the prisoners being released upon the streets.
Aftershock gives us something very different because we get a disaster movie which comes off realistic and sudden which is a big plus but it doesn’t stop there by giving us a survival horror when the group have to survive from prisoners. It would be fair to say there is a negative with the building up to the disaster but this does help give us small character development. When we deal with the aftershock of the earthquake we have to deal with non-stop action throughout. This was a real surprise because I thought there would have been more hype about the film.
Actor Review
Eli Roth: Gringo is the single father on the trip, he is friends with Ariel which shows that he isn’t the closet with Pollo. He is using this holiday as a chance to get over the recently divorce but when the quake hits he finds himself having to pull Pollo out of his daze. Eli does well but it becomes clear he really should be behind the camera.
Andrea Osvart: Monica is the stricter older sister to Kylie who tries her best to keep her sister safe on their adventure but she has a secret from the rest which is very important for the aftershock side of the story. Andrea is good in this leading role being the sensible one during the situation.monica
Nicolas Martinez: Pollo is the Spanish talking member of the group, he has gotten by because the money his family has. He finds himself having to step up after the quake to do the things normal men wouldn’t. his final moments are slightly stupid but otherwise a good character. Nicolas is good in this role as the man who needs to step up.
Natasha Yarovenko: Irina is one of the girls who is very similar to Gringo being a single parent and also a success. She starts off thinking she is more but soon becomes the strongest one during the situation. Natasha is good in this role and the sympathy between her and Gringo’s character comes through strong.
Lorenza Izzo: Kylie is the younger party animal of the two sisters, she just wants to have fun on her trip but with her old sister trying to protect her she finds herself being held back until the quake hits and she wants her sister to help her. Lorenza is good in this bratty like character which put her on the map for a future horror scream queen.
Support Cast: Aftershock has the basic supporting cast that all help with the survival side of the story.
Director Review: Nicolas Lopez – Nicolas gives us a film that keeps pulling us in once the earthquake hits.
Action: Aftershock use the action for the destruction side of the story which helps us with mother nature side of the story.
Horror: Aftershock comes from the human side of the story as we see just how twisted they can become in a situation our characters find themselves in.
Thriller: Aftershock keeps us on edge from start to finish.
Settings: Aftershock uses Chile for the settings which works for a different location and shows our characters lost during a disaster.
Special Effects: Aftershock has good effects to create what happens to the characters in the disaster.
Suggestion: Aftershock is one to watch especially is you like disaster movies. (Watch)
Best Part: Earthquake.
Worst Part: Slightly too much before the quake.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $2 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 29 Minutes
Tagline: The only thing more terrifying than Mother Nature is human nature.
Overall: Surprisingly intense film that blends two great genres.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/19/movie-reviews-101-midnight-horror-aftershock-2012/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
POOW The Food Hero
Health & Fitness and Medical
App
POOW The Food Hero is a tool for parents / healthcare to help and use to support and motivate...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Your Name (2016) in Movies
Sep 22, 2021
PHOTO EXHIBITION: NOSTALGIA
What would your life be like if you were born somewhere else, *someone* else? How much of our lives is predetermined exclusively on such random variables beyond our control, things that we've all imagined changing at one point or another? Just to be upfront, one of my absolute least favorite plots in movies is switching bodies - the plot tends to just halt entirely to provide such rote "lol person does thing they don't usually do lol" or "uh oh... I'm another gender!" jokes before it actually decides to do anything. But between this and 2020's Freaky I'm glad to see they've finally started putting some nuance into these things. Honestly one of the greatest movies I've ever seen - probably the most bracingly beautiful animated movie ever conceived and it's just as impactful narratively. Tackles layers of regressive gender roles, the cruel indiscriminate randomness within human existence, the tumultuousness of adolescence, and along with Shyamalan's 𝘜𝘯𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 handles the concept of fate/destiny better than any other film I've seen. That and it's also just so damn hilarious. I initially thought the conclusion was maybe about 10 minutes too long, but afterwards I thought perhaps that was the point - in further distancing it from its preceding events, giving legitimacy to its setting. After a string of disappointments made me remember why I even love movies in the first place.
What would your life be like if you were born somewhere else, *someone* else? How much of our lives is predetermined exclusively on such random variables beyond our control, things that we've all imagined changing at one point or another? Just to be upfront, one of my absolute least favorite plots in movies is switching bodies - the plot tends to just halt entirely to provide such rote "lol person does thing they don't usually do lol" or "uh oh... I'm another gender!" jokes before it actually decides to do anything. But between this and 2020's Freaky I'm glad to see they've finally started putting some nuance into these things. Honestly one of the greatest movies I've ever seen - probably the most bracingly beautiful animated movie ever conceived and it's just as impactful narratively. Tackles layers of regressive gender roles, the cruel indiscriminate randomness within human existence, the tumultuousness of adolescence, and along with Shyamalan's 𝘜𝘯𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 handles the concept of fate/destiny better than any other film I've seen. That and it's also just so damn hilarious. I initially thought the conclusion was maybe about 10 minutes too long, but afterwards I thought perhaps that was the point - in further distancing it from its preceding events, giving legitimacy to its setting. After a string of disappointments made me remember why I even love movies in the first place.