Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman: The Movie (1966) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019 (Updated Feb 18, 2019)
Some days, you just can’t get rid of a bomb!
Before the Frank Miller’s Dark Knight, there was the Caped Crusader; The founding member of the Dynamic Duo, Batman and his ward, the Boy Wonder, Robin. In order to promote the series, after Batman’s first season, a theatrical version was green-lit. Bigger and longer than any of the soon to be syndicated TV show, which would ultimately run for three seasons, Batman was on the big screen with “all his wonderful toys” and a whole host of new ones.
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
Welcome, the Bat Ladder, Bat-boat, Bat-copter and of course the Bat Shark Repellent! The wry humour can easily be dismissed as hammy and cheap, but in fact, this incarnation of Batman struck a cord and ran with it with confidence. And in this era of The Dark Knight, Batman Light is a welcome respite from all the dower self flagellation of the character.
The late Adam West and Burt Ward are as dry as ever as they over act and dramatically fight crime against a collection of cartoon villains, with this movie delivering the most popular, The Joker (Caesar Romero), Catwoman (Lee Meriwether), The Riddler (Frank Gorshin, all of whom have been brought together by Burgess Meredith’s, Penguin.
Fun from start to finish, with Batman gags, satirical humour and out and out farce! (The bomb gag is classic!) An outrageous plot involving dehydrating the UN Security Council is delivered at a breakneck pace, with one set piece being delivered after another. It is hard to imagine that so much happens in such a lean running time. This is a smart comedy with does not out stay its welcome.
And that is the thing with Batman (1966); It is a smart comedy posing a piece of nonsense. A point proven by its popularity 50 years on. If anything, the recent Lego Batman Movie plays the same hand, only it gets away with it because its a kids Lego digi-mation. But the humour is very similar, irreverently honouring their source.
If you have not seen this in years and god forbid, not at all then get yourself…
…”to the Batmobile!”
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Joe (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
So, officially … spring is here although it still feels like winter to your friendly
neighborhood freelance photographer but according to the calendar it’s spring.
Another indicator that it might be spring? Nicolas Cage has a new film out.
Seriously, he does .. and it’s actually a dark, heavy-duty drama.
‘Joe’ is based on the 1991 novel of the same name written by author Larry Brown.
Directed by David Gordon Green who’se credits include comedies like 2008’s
‘Pineapple Express’ and the HBO t.v. series ‘Eastbound & Down’ … ‘Joe’is certainly
no comedy.
Starring Nicolas Cage, Tye Sheridan, and Ronnie Gene Belvins ‘Joe’ is a dark, gritty
film that tells the story of Joe Ransom. An angry ex-con who befriends Gary, a teenager
from an abusive, broken home who approaches Joe looking for work with his ‘tree poinsoning’
crew. Impressed by Gary’s stubborness and determination Joe gives him a job (and later
his truck) and attempts to set Gary on ‘the right path’ and becomes an unlikely rolemodel
for him. At home though, Gary’s family life is slowly spiraling at of control due to
his alcholic father and the situation points to a dark, violent confrontation.
I can honestly say that this is one of Nic Cage’s best and ‘sincere’ performances in a
while and due to the darkness of the film, it will most likely go unrecognized. The film
doesn’t hold back. It’s in-your-face, gritty, and violent. The minute you don’t think it
can get more disturbing, it does just that. As the viewer, the experience was like an
old-fashioned pinball machine only you, the viewer, ARE the pinball.
I don’t recommend this as a ‘date movie’ but if you like Nicolas Cage’s work and you’re
looking for a good drama, this is defintely one to see. If this movie is any indication,
I imagine it won’t be too long before Nic Cage has another great performance under his belt
so keep an eye out. ‘Joe’ is rated ‘R’ and you can catch it in theaters on April 11th.
I give the film 4 out of 5 stars.
neighborhood freelance photographer but according to the calendar it’s spring.
Another indicator that it might be spring? Nicolas Cage has a new film out.
Seriously, he does .. and it’s actually a dark, heavy-duty drama.
‘Joe’ is based on the 1991 novel of the same name written by author Larry Brown.
Directed by David Gordon Green who’se credits include comedies like 2008’s
‘Pineapple Express’ and the HBO t.v. series ‘Eastbound & Down’ … ‘Joe’is certainly
no comedy.
Starring Nicolas Cage, Tye Sheridan, and Ronnie Gene Belvins ‘Joe’ is a dark, gritty
film that tells the story of Joe Ransom. An angry ex-con who befriends Gary, a teenager
from an abusive, broken home who approaches Joe looking for work with his ‘tree poinsoning’
crew. Impressed by Gary’s stubborness and determination Joe gives him a job (and later
his truck) and attempts to set Gary on ‘the right path’ and becomes an unlikely rolemodel
for him. At home though, Gary’s family life is slowly spiraling at of control due to
his alcholic father and the situation points to a dark, violent confrontation.
I can honestly say that this is one of Nic Cage’s best and ‘sincere’ performances in a
while and due to the darkness of the film, it will most likely go unrecognized. The film
doesn’t hold back. It’s in-your-face, gritty, and violent. The minute you don’t think it
can get more disturbing, it does just that. As the viewer, the experience was like an
old-fashioned pinball machine only you, the viewer, ARE the pinball.
I don’t recommend this as a ‘date movie’ but if you like Nicolas Cage’s work and you’re
looking for a good drama, this is defintely one to see. If this movie is any indication,
I imagine it won’t be too long before Nic Cage has another great performance under his belt
so keep an eye out. ‘Joe’ is rated ‘R’ and you can catch it in theaters on April 11th.
I give the film 4 out of 5 stars.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated 20th Century Women (2017) in Movies
Oct 15, 2017 (Updated Oct 15, 2017)
A solid drama with beautiful cinematography
I began watching this thinking it would be like Little Miss Sunshine aka dark humour but good comedy. But it's not at all - it's pure drama, but still good nevertheless.
Annette Bening plays a lonely 54 year old mother living with her teenage son, and various lodgers in 1979. There's a massive generational divide, Bening was born in the 1920's and feels overwhelmed with her son in this era where punk rock is all the rage and there's general apathy at the world.
At this point she asks for help from her lodger, a young feminist photographer in remission from cervical cancer and a much older hippy mechanic. Instead they seem to confuse the situation further due to a gap in understanding about one another's circumstances, causing mother and son to further drift apart.
It's a different style of coming-of-age film because it shows how the mother's role is also changing and adapting to a new age of politics and societal pressures. A poignant, beautifully shot drama.
Annette Bening plays a lonely 54 year old mother living with her teenage son, and various lodgers in 1979. There's a massive generational divide, Bening was born in the 1920's and feels overwhelmed with her son in this era where punk rock is all the rage and there's general apathy at the world.
At this point she asks for help from her lodger, a young feminist photographer in remission from cervical cancer and a much older hippy mechanic. Instead they seem to confuse the situation further due to a gap in understanding about one another's circumstances, causing mother and son to further drift apart.
It's a different style of coming-of-age film because it shows how the mother's role is also changing and adapting to a new age of politics and societal pressures. A poignant, beautifully shot drama.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Frenzy (1972) in Movies
Mar 8, 2018 (Updated Mar 8, 2018)
Penultimate Hitchcock thriller is solid but unpalatable tale of a serial killer on the loose in London and marked Hitchcock's return to his home country for the first time in decades. Police are baffled by the crimes of the so-called Necktie Killer, eventually set their sights on drifter and generally moody git Blaney (Finch). But have they got the right man?
Hitchcock himself certainly turns up, for there is at least one moment of the old dark magic (a bravura tracking shot in which a murder is implied without being shown), but it is the problematic Hitch - misogynistic, sour, given to awkward tonal misjudgements - who oversees this movie. Movie is largely about a rapist and killer, but the director still includes various jolly running gags and moments of broad comedy; the end result may well leave a bad taste in the mouth of discerning viewers. The decision to go with such an unsympathetic anti-hero is also arguably a mistake. Worth a look for Hitchcock fans, but also evidence that the great man had essentially shot his bolt many years earlier.
Hitchcock himself certainly turns up, for there is at least one moment of the old dark magic (a bravura tracking shot in which a murder is implied without being shown), but it is the problematic Hitch - misogynistic, sour, given to awkward tonal misjudgements - who oversees this movie. Movie is largely about a rapist and killer, but the director still includes various jolly running gags and moments of broad comedy; the end result may well leave a bad taste in the mouth of discerning viewers. The decision to go with such an unsympathetic anti-hero is also arguably a mistake. Worth a look for Hitchcock fans, but also evidence that the great man had essentially shot his bolt many years earlier.
Rebecca Billcliff (2409 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Nov 30, 2019
Not as Described
If you saw this trailer, and were expect8ng an numerous tale of Maggie Smith playing an obstanant and witty old lady... you are going to be disappointed.
While there is some humour in this film, mostly dark and subtle (Not that that is an issue) it is not as hysterical as the trailer makes out. This is one of those very annoying cases where the genre and themes of the film, we're lost on whoever cut the trailer.
Said trailer is jammed full of every joke in the film, leaving you to think, "oka y, this looks fun, this will cheer me up". Sadly, the overall feel of the film is more drama than comedy.
That said, it is a very good film, well worth a watch, with the usual perfect performance from Maggie, but do not expect to be cheered up by this film, as it is quite sad.
I liked the film, however I was disappointed as I wanted something light and witty, this brought me down man.
While there is some humour in this film, mostly dark and subtle (Not that that is an issue) it is not as hysterical as the trailer makes out. This is one of those very annoying cases where the genre and themes of the film, we're lost on whoever cut the trailer.
Said trailer is jammed full of every joke in the film, leaving you to think, "oka y, this looks fun, this will cheer me up". Sadly, the overall feel of the film is more drama than comedy.
That said, it is a very good film, well worth a watch, with the usual perfect performance from Maggie, but do not expect to be cheered up by this film, as it is quite sad.
I liked the film, however I was disappointed as I wanted something light and witty, this brought me down man.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated The Signal (2007) in Movies
Jul 21, 2020
A complete blast!
A mysterious signal is emitted through electronics when you hear it, a voice convinces you that you need to kill everyone else.
Mya (Anessa Ramsey) is traveling across the city to escape from her crazy boyfriend Lewis (AJ Bowen), while Ben (Justin Welborn) seeks Anessa too.
The Signal (2007) is done in three parts, the first part introduces the characters and the plot and throws them into a world of violence. It's brutal, crazy, and disturbing. The movie starts out like a good horror movie.
The second part shifts the tone entirely. It becomes a hilarious dark comedy. The cast is perfect in their dry witty delivery. I loved it!
The third part concludes the plot, returning the tone to a serious one again.
Overall, the acting was solid, the action was well done. The horrifying moments were disturbing, the comedic moments were hilarious. I minus one star for the big tonal shifts, which may turn away some viewers. But I still loved it. Highly recommended.
Mya (Anessa Ramsey) is traveling across the city to escape from her crazy boyfriend Lewis (AJ Bowen), while Ben (Justin Welborn) seeks Anessa too.
The Signal (2007) is done in three parts, the first part introduces the characters and the plot and throws them into a world of violence. It's brutal, crazy, and disturbing. The movie starts out like a good horror movie.
The second part shifts the tone entirely. It becomes a hilarious dark comedy. The cast is perfect in their dry witty delivery. I loved it!
The third part concludes the plot, returning the tone to a serious one again.
Overall, the acting was solid, the action was well done. The horrifying moments were disturbing, the comedic moments were hilarious. I minus one star for the big tonal shifts, which may turn away some viewers. But I still loved it. Highly recommended.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Confused and dull
Having read other Smashbombers reviews, I did at least go into this film knowing it wasn't an out an out thriller, but that still didn't prepare me for what followed.
This film really can't decide what it is; dark comedy, thriller? It seems to seesaw between the two for the entire 2 hour run time, with very little success in either genre. There are a few funny-ish (I smiled a bit) parts but most of the humour is a little bit cheesy or niche. The thriller side too is very predictable, and most of the twists you can see coming a mile off - this almost feels like a second rate comedy rip off of Gone Girl. And then the final act just goes completely bonkers and ridiculous.
Anna Kendrick plays the same character she always does, and I've finally had enough as shes starting to grate on me. Some of the supporting actors like Andrew Rannells aren't given anywhere near enough screen time (loved him in Girls). The only one to come out of this film unscathed is Blake Lively. She's very charismatic and surprisingly endearing, despite her characters reputation and actions. I have to admit, I have a bit of a girl crush on her - id love to be able to dress like that at work!
For the most part, this film was pretty dull and predictable, and was only entertaining whenever Lively is on screen, which wasn't nearly often enough.
This film really can't decide what it is; dark comedy, thriller? It seems to seesaw between the two for the entire 2 hour run time, with very little success in either genre. There are a few funny-ish (I smiled a bit) parts but most of the humour is a little bit cheesy or niche. The thriller side too is very predictable, and most of the twists you can see coming a mile off - this almost feels like a second rate comedy rip off of Gone Girl. And then the final act just goes completely bonkers and ridiculous.
Anna Kendrick plays the same character she always does, and I've finally had enough as shes starting to grate on me. Some of the supporting actors like Andrew Rannells aren't given anywhere near enough screen time (loved him in Girls). The only one to come out of this film unscathed is Blake Lively. She's very charismatic and surprisingly endearing, despite her characters reputation and actions. I have to admit, I have a bit of a girl crush on her - id love to be able to dress like that at work!
For the most part, this film was pretty dull and predictable, and was only entertaining whenever Lively is on screen, which wasn't nearly often enough.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated What We Do in the Shadows in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Ridiculously Funny And Absurdly Delightful
What We Do In The Shadows s a 2019 comedy/horror mockumentary television series written by Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi. It's based on the 2014 movie of the same name. The show was produced by FXP, Two Canoes Pictures, and 343 Incorporated. The series stars Kayvan Novak, Matt Berry, Natasia Demetriou, Harvey Guillen, and Mark Proksch.
After an unexpected visit from their dark lord and leader, four vampires who've "lived" together for hundreds of years in Staten Island are reminded they were tasked with total and complete domination of the New World over a century ago. A verite camera crew follows along and gives a documentary-style look into their daily lives as they go about achieving said domination.
This show is ridiculously funny and just as good as the movie it's based on. It is a great mix of two genres that don't always mix well horror and comedy but with a mockumentary style akin to The Office. The only thing I would say is that the show's sense of humor isn't for everyone. But I like it and enjoyed it and am super excited it's been renewed for a second season. I love how it expands on the vampire lore of the world that they built upon and how they satirize the whole vampire genre. How they aren't afraid to make fun of the cliches and tropes often overused and familiar for fans of the genre. I give this show a 8/10.
After an unexpected visit from their dark lord and leader, four vampires who've "lived" together for hundreds of years in Staten Island are reminded they were tasked with total and complete domination of the New World over a century ago. A verite camera crew follows along and gives a documentary-style look into their daily lives as they go about achieving said domination.
This show is ridiculously funny and just as good as the movie it's based on. It is a great mix of two genres that don't always mix well horror and comedy but with a mockumentary style akin to The Office. The only thing I would say is that the show's sense of humor isn't for everyone. But I like it and enjoyed it and am super excited it's been renewed for a second season. I love how it expands on the vampire lore of the world that they built upon and how they satirize the whole vampire genre. How they aren't afraid to make fun of the cliches and tropes often overused and familiar for fans of the genre. I give this show a 8/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready or Not (2019) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Great From Beginning to End
A new bride agrees to an innocent game with her in-laws on her wedding night only to find out the game involves her murder.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10The film has a dark, yet colorful cast that works on both engaging and eery levels. Part comedy, part horror directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett masterfully capture both without either looking out of place. I was very impressed with the attention to detail.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10It’s hard to miss when you combine action, comedy, and horror into a solid movie. Every moment of this movie is engaging. it’s a ride you’re excited to be a part of as you wade through what the heck is going to happen next. A fun, wild ride.
Memorability: 9
Ready Or Not will definitely stand in the memory long after being watched. Again, it checks the boxes in the three different categories. However, it doesn’t quite master any of them hence the docked point.
Pace: 10
Great start, then the tension continues to mount from there. it never lets its foot off the gas save for a few short breaths. It shoots out of a cannon then moves forward at a breakneck pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
One of my favorite parts of the entire story. Mums the word here.
Overall: 99
In the near future, I’m going to do a piece on “Movies I Can Watch Repeatedly and Not Get Bored”. Ready Or Not will probably make that list. It does so many things right. Definitely a movie to remember.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10The film has a dark, yet colorful cast that works on both engaging and eery levels. Part comedy, part horror directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett masterfully capture both without either looking out of place. I was very impressed with the attention to detail.
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10It’s hard to miss when you combine action, comedy, and horror into a solid movie. Every moment of this movie is engaging. it’s a ride you’re excited to be a part of as you wade through what the heck is going to happen next. A fun, wild ride.
Memorability: 9
Ready Or Not will definitely stand in the memory long after being watched. Again, it checks the boxes in the three different categories. However, it doesn’t quite master any of them hence the docked point.
Pace: 10
Great start, then the tension continues to mount from there. it never lets its foot off the gas save for a few short breaths. It shoots out of a cannon then moves forward at a breakneck pace.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
One of my favorite parts of the entire story. Mums the word here.
Overall: 99
In the near future, I’m going to do a piece on “Movies I Can Watch Repeatedly and Not Get Bored”. Ready Or Not will probably make that list. It does so many things right. Definitely a movie to remember.