Search
Search results
Steven Sklansky (231 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Shhh. You Make a Sound You Die.
These types of movies are never really my favorite. Most of the time the trailer is what makes me not want to see a movie. This time was a little bit different. I didn't really know what to think of this trailer, it wasn't really appealing but I thought I might be good. So I broke the trend and went to see it. This was a fantastic movie and it was written and directed by a guy would not normally associate with horror. .John Krasinski, most known for comedy and sometime drama, made me really like this movie.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
This movie is about a world taken over by monsters that find and kill you by sound. Could you live in a world of silence? I don't think I could, but in a movie with almost no dialogue they did an amazing job. Now there was sign language, which I thought was very smart, otherwise facial expressions and body language was the words of this movie. The grown up actors were great. The kids actually did a very good job with this. Sometimes kids do not have the emotional range to be able to pull something like this off.
There are several this in this movie that are never really answered. One of them is where the monster came from. Not that it really matters but I kind of would like to know if they are aliens or just monsters that just showed up one day. I think they came from the upside down. They really do look like demogorgons from Stranger Thing. I thought this was kind of a cheat, but the way they act and kill was very original.
It wasn't a bloody or gorey movie, which was just fine. The suspense was done just right,. making you jump in just the right places. The other cool thing with this movie was, being that there was no dialogue for about the first 45 minutes the theater was creepy quiet. Like you could hear a pin drop.
If you can go see this movie, you will not be disappointed. You might also be afraid to talk or make a noise upon leaving the theater. Until next time, enjoy the show.
Awix (3310 KP) rated An American Werewolf in London (1981) in Movies
May 17, 2021
Off-beat horror comedy. Two American backpackers travelling through Europe are attacked by a ferocious beast in the Yorkshire Dales; one of them is horribly slaughtered, the other is less fortunate.
In with a shout as the best werewolf movie ever, although this is partly because of the lack of serious competition. The story hits all the usual beats, but is elevated by a knowing sense of humour (and jokes which really land) and Rick Baker's still-impressive make-up effects (it's hard to know which sequence Landis seems more fascinated by, the transformation or Jenny Agutter in the shower). A fascination with the weirdness of British culture, along with a supporting cast of great character actors, also helps to make the film distinctive. Very funny, very scary, occasionally very gory; a great horror movie.
In with a shout as the best werewolf movie ever, although this is partly because of the lack of serious competition. The story hits all the usual beats, but is elevated by a knowing sense of humour (and jokes which really land) and Rick Baker's still-impressive make-up effects (it's hard to know which sequence Landis seems more fascinated by, the transformation or Jenny Agutter in the shower). A fascination with the weirdness of British culture, along with a supporting cast of great character actors, also helps to make the film distinctive. Very funny, very scary, occasionally very gory; a great horror movie.
Neve Campbell recommended Singin' in the Rain (1952) in Movies (curated)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jul 27, 2019)
Overhyped and disappointed
Contains spoilers, click to show
This review will contain spoilers.... and this is my opinon.
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Once upon a time in hollywood is Quentin Tarantino’s ninth film and has a large ensemble cast.
This to me didnt seem like a quentin tarantino film, i mean it had some elements that he does but overall it didnt seem like a tarantino film, it was missing all of elements pervious used in his other films. There are only three storylines in this film. Rick's storyline, Cliff's storyline and Sharon's storyline and thats it. When in reservoir dogs, pulp fiction, jackie brown and four roons their were more than three storylines. Its also missing all the blood and gore like in his other films. Yes that sence at the end, and one of Rick's movies he has a flamflower but thats it. When as the other films that tarantino did had alot of blood and gore and violence and swearing. This movie seemed like it had none of that.
I was very disappointed because iam a huge quentin tarantino fan, i think he is one of the best directors of all time and like his other movies. So i was very excited for this movie and turns out i was very disappointed.
It didnt seem like it was a 2h and 40min movie.
Also lets talk about charles manson and his family throwed into this movie. I thought the movie was going to be about Rick and Cliff invisagating the murder of sharon taron and invisagating the manson family. Their are only three sences that have to do with the manson family.
1. The scene were charles introduces himself to polanski home.
2. When cliff goes to Spahn ranch run by the manson family and thier meanching charlies and cliff should meet him. This sence right here is the best part of the movie. Its myserious, dramatic, you dont know if the family is going to murder cliff or not. So your questioning if thats going to happen. But unfourtaly this sence is only like 5-15 mins long and at no point charles comes. You think something is going to happen than boom sence ends.
3. The end, were some of the manson family are about to kill tate and her friends and then thier try to kill rick and cliff because cliff was mad at them for being hillbillys and being on privite property. Which was like a unexpected turn but why??? Cliff fights them off and kills two of them and then rick kills one with a flameflower.
Thats it, three sences with the manson family and one with charles what a let down.
This whole movie was a let down,
Dakota Fanning, Bruce Dern, Luke Perry , Damian Lewis, Timothy Olyphant and micheal madsen all had one sence and these are big movie stars. To waste all of this talent is sad. Basically most of the supporting cast was wasted and only had one sence.
Also the ending, after rick and cliff fight off some of the manson family, cliff is being taking off to the hostipal and rick finally meets sharon tate then the movie's title comes on and then boom movie off. I thought that cant be it, that wasnt 2h and 40mins. It didnt feel like it, but it was. I thought why are the credits showing. Their should be more, but no the credits are showing.
Once upon a time in hollywood, is alternate timeline movie about the late 1960's in hollywood. But why have the manson family in it when your not going to use them that much. Why develop this alternate storyline, when their is a real life story and your using the real life people in the movie. Stupid it.
I can go on and on how this movie was very disappointed but i think i did this movie its justice.
Overall, once upon a time in hollywood is a very dissappointed movie.
:(
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
Very entertaining and funny (5 more)
The title Characters have great chemistry
The villain is once again relateable
Nods to possible future plans particularly with Scott Lang's daughter. If u read the comics and saw this movie u know that they set her up so hard to be what she is in the comics and u never know
a what the future may hold
Luis kills it again with his comic relief and so does his pals
Stick around for the credits scenes like with all other marvel movies
Not very necessary to and in the MCU but brings up some things that may be important to the universe moving forward especially with avengers 4 on the horizon (2 more)
The side villain wasn't very great but not bad
It's a true sequel nothing else to say
Not necessary but fun movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ok so elephant in the room this movie didn't have to happen and I wouldve been fine either way but I enjoyed it nonetheless and it was a very fun movie especially after the movie we had before it and it was like a tissue we needed. And also this takes place during the event that was infinity war so take note of that.
Almost everyone is great in this movie with the exception of The side villain...he wasn't great but wasn't terrible as long as the guy who's playing hims last name is not Grace I'm fine.
Also while it's not necessary in the universe but it brings up points about future possibilities of the universe going forward especially with avengers 4 coming next year and yeah this movie does not impact the universe in any major way except for the credits scene.
Overall I had fun with it. do u need to watch it to get ready for avengers 4?
that's up to you, but it's a great movie either way
Almost everyone is great in this movie with the exception of The side villain...he wasn't great but wasn't terrible as long as the guy who's playing hims last name is not Grace I'm fine.
Also while it's not necessary in the universe but it brings up points about future possibilities of the universe going forward especially with avengers 4 coming next year and yeah this movie does not impact the universe in any major way except for the credits scene.
Overall I had fun with it. do u need to watch it to get ready for avengers 4?
that's up to you, but it's a great movie either way
Micah Ulibarri (79 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 7, 2018
Willy Wonka for the Digital Age
I went in to this movie somewhat cautious. I hadn't read the book, but the trailers looked very overwhelming.
I was excited to see that though it was very visually stimulating, I did not feel overwhelmed, just enamoured. 20 minutes in told my wife I would be seeing it again and the next time hopefully in a 3D IMAX. I want to be able to fully appreciate the visual beauty.
I also really enjoyed the theme. I found it particularly relevant. The character growth is almost subtle, but the point of it is very strong. In an age where we are all stuck to screens, Ready Player one has a very strong message.
Acting Kudos to Mark Rylance for being the brilliant billionaire. Unfortunately the characters being digital for more than half the movie makes it hard to really see their acting chops.
I also enjoyed all the pop culture references. Even though I felt like a lot of them were just before my time. 80s references and earlier and I'm a 90s kid.
All in all, I think it will stand the test of time on both a visual and message level. And everyone should see it and appreciate what a movie experience can be.
I was excited to see that though it was very visually stimulating, I did not feel overwhelmed, just enamoured. 20 minutes in told my wife I would be seeing it again and the next time hopefully in a 3D IMAX. I want to be able to fully appreciate the visual beauty.
I also really enjoyed the theme. I found it particularly relevant. The character growth is almost subtle, but the point of it is very strong. In an age where we are all stuck to screens, Ready Player one has a very strong message.
Acting Kudos to Mark Rylance for being the brilliant billionaire. Unfortunately the characters being digital for more than half the movie makes it hard to really see their acting chops.
I also enjoyed all the pop culture references. Even though I felt like a lot of them were just before my time. 80s references and earlier and I'm a 90s kid.
All in all, I think it will stand the test of time on both a visual and message level. And everyone should see it and appreciate what a movie experience can be.
Topher Grace recommended The Breakfast Club (1985) in Movies (curated)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated Chasing Amy (1997) in Movies
May 11, 2020
I am dumbfounded. When I first started this film, I was not into it. I don't know why maybe I just wasn't in the mood to watch a movie. Either way, I'm so glad I finished it because I ended up loving it. Like holy crap do I love it. It made my favorites list.
I think that it's a really interesting plot, but also the subject matter is really important. There's a lot to learn in this film and I really appreciate that. Especially given the time it came out. 1997 wasn't the most conservative time in history but it wasn't the most open either. As a queer kid, I loved every minute of this movie. There are definitely some discrepancies and things that are a bit uncomfortable, but I think that's life and that's why this movie is so good. Heck, I really liked it. Who cares what anyone else says?
I think that it's a really interesting plot, but also the subject matter is really important. There's a lot to learn in this film and I really appreciate that. Especially given the time it came out. 1997 wasn't the most conservative time in history but it wasn't the most open either. As a queer kid, I loved every minute of this movie. There are definitely some discrepancies and things that are a bit uncomfortable, but I think that's life and that's why this movie is so good. Heck, I really liked it. Who cares what anyone else says?