Search
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated You're Next (2013) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finding a good horror film has been a little like a prompt train over the last few years, they are few and far between. However, 2013 has produced more than its fair share of movies within the genre, with the excellent The Purge, released earlier this year; Insidious 2, which is in cinemas this autumn and of course, the subject of this review; You’re Next. But can this modern horror film deliver the thrills and spills of those of yesteryear?
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
Relative newcomer Adam Wingard directs this rather formulaic home invasion film with some nice creative touches and a rousing score, borrowing heavily from other similar films like the dire When a Stranger Calls, the excellent The Strangers and the downright ridiculous Black Christmas.
However, what sets You’re Next apart from the pack is in its comic timing. Rather than going for full shock value, the film delivers a comedic edge which is welcome in breaking up the bludgeoning and stabbing, which there is a huge amount of.
The plot is simple, a family gathers at their parents’ large manor house to celebrate an anniversary, only to be taunted and butchered by a group of masked killers intent on ruining the party. There are the usual horror clichés of people being watched from outside, people being crept up on from behind and the gem that is thinking there is someone there and realising it’s just a member of the family, but Wingard keeps it feeling fresh and new throughout.
The acting is generally terrible, as is the case with many horror films, but because the movie never takes itself too seriously, the performances add to the overall effect rather than become an annoyance. One stand-out characterisation is Sharni Vinson as Erin, a larger than life Australian who really comes into her own in the battle between the ever decreasing family and the constant onslaught of the masked murderers.
Whilst not scaling the heights of last year’s Cabin in the Woods, You’re Next really helps show that there is life in a genre which has been inundated with cheap knock-offs, countless sequels and pointless remakes.
It is daft, unoriginal and full of lifeless characters, but as a slice of truly terrifying horror and a piece of laugh out loud dark comedy, it succeeds and is highly recommended.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Jan 11, 2020
As my last cinema visit of 2019 I was just hoping for something passable to watch, animation his year has had a few hard knocks so I wasn't optimistic.
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
Lance is the world's greatest spy, catlike reflexes, excellent deduction skills as well as suave and sophisticated... all the things you'd expect. He's the golden boy of the agency and is ready for another pat on the back and some admiration. But it isn't his lucky day, the device he retrieved is missing from the case and now he's under investigation. He knows that he's innocent but there's damning evidence against him, his only hope is to clear his name, and the only way to do that is to escape the agency and track the real culprit down. His next problem, who can he trust?
This really is Bond for kids, everything is fantastically reminiscent of it, from his slightly too cocky demeanour to the brilliant opening credits. It's a pretty solid film, there's nothing much to dislike. It's essentially Bond mixed with Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs... what's not to love about that?!
I have to wonder about opening kids films this way, it seems to be very common at the moment. The lead needs to have a tragedy to get through the movie and have their moment of realisation. Playmobil did it in a much less subtle way, as did Wonder Park to some extent.
There aren't any real issues with the voice acting, though I do wonder about the choice of Ben Mendelsohn paired with his animated character, the two don't really match as well as the others. But that's not a deal-breaker.
The animation style is very clean and easy to watch. There are before and after shots of some scenes that show what the lighting guy does, it's really interesting to see. After having brought this topic up after seeing Klaus it was nice to see some of the "hidden" parts of animated films. The effort is immense.
Music is used well in parts of the film, and my favourite has to be the "romantic" portion towards the end, very amusingly set up and clearly well thought out.
Walter, our inventor, really does have the sort of imagination that would get him hired by Chester V. My favourite invention was probably the glitter distraction, I believe this may already exist though as it appears to have been deployed in my home over Christmas. This may be the only major continuity note... once Lance brushes the glitter off we don't see any little specks again, completely unrealistic!
There are a lot of great sequences during the film and the action moves it along quickly, add in the humour from the pigeons and all the gadgets and you get something really fun. I will definitely watch this again when it hits streaming. My score may seem a little off considering I didn't hate anything, the reason for this is that it's essentially a lot of other films mixed together. As I said, we've got Bond and Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs with an assortment of action movies and Home Alone 2 thrown in for good measure, which made it enjoyable but not instantly rewatchable.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/spies-in-disguise-movie-review.html
SweetSelfie Pro-Motion sticker
Photo & Video and Entertainment
App
Take a fun selfie with live motion stickers and face effects now！ Sweet Selfie Pro - Selfie...
Add Background Music To Video
Photo & Video and Utilities
App
• Add Unlimited background music to videos! • Make your own music videos! • Record your own...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Casablanca (1942) in Movies
May 6, 2019
A Classic in Every Sense of the Word
"Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she walks into mine."
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"We'll always have Paris."
"Here's looking at you, kid."
"Louis, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."
And many, many, many other iconic lines were featured in the brilliant 1942 all-time Classic CASABLANCA. Listed as "Warner Brothers Project #410", this film was supposed to be "just another film", but it turned out to be something more.
Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Claude Rains, CASABLANCA tells the story of refugees trying to flee Nazi controlled France (via Casablanca) in WWII. Amongst the denizens of Casablanca, there is Rick Blain, proprieter of Rick's Cafe American - a place where one can buy documents needed to escape, as well as escape - through a bottle.
Humphrey Bogart is perfectly cast as the jaded, "I stick my neck out for no one", Rick. He is cynical, corrupt, selfish...but he also has a heart of gold underneath it all. Bogie plays all of these layers - richly - at once, and was rewarded with an Academy Award nomination. He would lose to Paul Lukas for WATCH ON THE RHINE - a film I haven't seen, so can't judge as to the merits of his win. But...based on Bogart's performance...I'd say he was robbed.
Rick's "partner in crime' is Capt. Louis Renault of the Casablanca police. He is cheerfully and unapologetic-ally played by Claude Rains, who also was nominated (but didn't win) for his performance. These two play off each other brilliantly and the chemistry between these two is evident and I would have LOVED to see another film featuring these two fine performers. I'd say the chemistry between these two actors is a high point in this film, if it weren't for...
Ingrid Bergman as Ilse Lund - a past romance of Rick's. When Ilse and her husband, Viktor Laszlo enters Rick's seeking transit papers to flee the Nazi's, the instant spark and chemistry between Bogart and Bergman is palatable. You can feel the heat between the two of them through the screen and the longing and regret for "what could have been" is heartbreaking. If you were to show an example of "screen chemistry" the scenes between Bogart in Bergman in this film would be "Exhibit A".
Credit for all of this - and for keeping the plot machinations moving forward - is Warner Brothers "contract director" Michael Curtiz - one of the greatest Directors of "old Hollywood." His credits include the Errol Flynn ROBIN HOOD, James Cagney's Oscar turn as George M. Cohan in YANKEE DOODLE DANDY, CASABLANCA, the Bing Crosby/Danny Kaye WHITE CHRISTMAS and John Wayne in THE COMMANCHERO'S - all big budget, big expectations films that delivered the goods. Curtiz won the Oscar for his work in this film.
Assisting him are the two men who wrote so many memorable lines...twin brothers Julius and Phillip Epstein. They (deservedly) won an Oscar for their screenplay - the only set of Twins to win the Oscar.
The supporting cast - including Paul Henreid, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre - are exceptional as well, as are great scene after great scene - including the "Marseilles" scene and, of course, the fog covered airport scene at the end.
If you haven't seen this film in awhile, do yourself a favor and check it out. If you have NEVER seen it, I envy you the experience of seeing this wonderful black and white film for the first time. It is consistently listed as one of the top 5 films of all time - and earns that ranking. It truly is one of the greatest films - with some of the greatest performances - of all time.
Certainly, if you wanted just one example of Studio "Old Hollywood" movie making, this would be the one movie to watch.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bad Santa 2 (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The last time we heard from Willie Soke (Billy Bob Thornton) he was recovering in jail after being shot eight times. We catch up with him today in maybe worse shape. He is out of jail but finds himself unable to hold a job and drinking to extreme excess. Th only visitor he has is a delusional, simple minded and well intentioned Thurman Merman (Brett Kelly). On the verge of ending it all he receives an invitation from his old partner, Marcus Skidmore (Tony Cox), to make a big score by robbing a Chicago charity on Christmas Eve. Wary, mostly because Marcus double crossed and shot him on their last job, Willie decides he needs the money and it’s a chance to double cross Marcus. So, he takes the job and heads to Chicago. When he arrives, he finds that Marcus has not told him everything. The job was put together by his arch nemesis. Someone who is more vile, crude and despicable than he is…his mother Sunny (Kathy Bates). Driven by greed and with the agreement that Marcus and him will cut his mother out at the end of the job Willie agrees to go forward with the robbery. The unlikely trio set out to infiltrate and rob the charity.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
It is surprising to say but this sequel to 2003s Bad Santa is even more outrageous and raunchy than the original. Billy Bob Thornton is perfect in this role as a sex crazed and barely functioning alcoholic. Willie is truly the Anti-Santa Claus. But with Thurman having faith in him and in his very out of the box way of trying to do good, you can’t help but root for him to succeed. Kathy Bates performance as a crude as can be equal to Thornton’s character was fun and unexpected. The full cast of characters are all unique and all bring something to the film. The story however is very familiar and not that far off from the first film. There were definitely jokes and plot lines that followed too closely, in my opinion, to the original film. This is definitely not a film for young audiences, as most of the film is profanity laced and full of sexual situations and innuendos. But for the adult audience there are a lot of laughs to be had. For me this was a perfect film to shut off for an hour and a half and just enjoy the craziness happening on screen. It is not an overthought or over complicated film. They took things from the original film that were successful changed them up a little, not enough at some points, and made everything a little more over the top.
I wouldn’t necessarily recommend paying movie theater prices for this film but it is definitely worth a watch for the right audiences.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Tales From the Crypt (1972) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Where this film is an anthology we don’t get too much time with each character, Joanne is a married woman with her own desires for life, showing a darker side after killer her husband on Christmas Eve. Carl Maitland is a married man that is planning on leaving his wife and children, he is involved in an accident which brings into a new lease of horror. Grimsdyke is an older man, he has lived with his wife in one home, with her passed away he wants to die in this house and must deal with the snotty neighbours that is trying to force him out. Jason is a businessman that has spent more than he has earnt forcing him to face bankruptcy for his actions. Rogers is the final story as a manager of home, he comes in with his strict ideas struggle to connect with the people he is meant to be caring for.
Performances – By being an anthology the stars only get limited time, Joan Collins gets the ball rolling as is good in her role with us believing how calculated her actions are. Ian Hendry is solid in his role, he is behind the camera for the most part making it hard to believe everything. Peter Cushing shines as the kindly old man that is getting pushed out of town. Richard Greene is solid enough without getting too much time to show us what makes his character unique. Nigel Patrick does make this character one of the more unlikable with ease.
Story – The story here takes us down the horror anthology line, we get to see five stories of five characters deaths, this does give us something different in each side of the horror scale, we know some are shorter than others with Blind Alleys and Poetic Justice being the stand out of the five stories. There is a big twist in the connection to the stories, but if you do know the TV show you will know the outcome. For a horror anthology this is everything you need without being to the extremes they go nowadays. Each short could easily become a longer film which is always positive.
Horror – When it comes to horror we sometimes get to best moments in shorts, anthologies give us a chance to experience different types of horror which will offer something for all horror fans.
Settings – Each film takes us to the world where the character comes from which shows us how the normal lives they live have the darker secrets.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are good through the film they show us what is capable with good practical effects.
Scene of the Movie – Blind Alleys when the door opens.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some stories are too short.
Final Thoughts – This is a good anthology for horror, it gets the best moments correct and keeps us guessing to what will happen to the characters involved.
Overall: Simple anthology.
Performances – By being an anthology the stars only get limited time, Joan Collins gets the ball rolling as is good in her role with us believing how calculated her actions are. Ian Hendry is solid in his role, he is behind the camera for the most part making it hard to believe everything. Peter Cushing shines as the kindly old man that is getting pushed out of town. Richard Greene is solid enough without getting too much time to show us what makes his character unique. Nigel Patrick does make this character one of the more unlikable with ease.
Story – The story here takes us down the horror anthology line, we get to see five stories of five characters deaths, this does give us something different in each side of the horror scale, we know some are shorter than others with Blind Alleys and Poetic Justice being the stand out of the five stories. There is a big twist in the connection to the stories, but if you do know the TV show you will know the outcome. For a horror anthology this is everything you need without being to the extremes they go nowadays. Each short could easily become a longer film which is always positive.
Horror – When it comes to horror we sometimes get to best moments in shorts, anthologies give us a chance to experience different types of horror which will offer something for all horror fans.
Settings – Each film takes us to the world where the character comes from which shows us how the normal lives they live have the darker secrets.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are good through the film they show us what is capable with good practical effects.
Scene of the Movie – Blind Alleys when the door opens.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some stories are too short.
Final Thoughts – This is a good anthology for horror, it gets the best moments correct and keeps us guessing to what will happen to the characters involved.
Overall: Simple anthology.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.