Search
Search results
Steve Fearon (84 KP) rated REC (2007) in Movies
Sep 5, 2018
28 Days Later in a stairwell
Possibly one of my favourite films, REC has everything that makes 28 days later such a monster of a movie, but it doubles down on claustrophobia and adds in the found footage aspect too, which makes the action just seem all the more immediate and in-your-face.
They do a great job of putting the viewer right there in the film, the performances feel genuine, and before long you are just along for the ride, the cameraman being your eyes and ears into a world when the infected become aggressive, murderous and frenetic, and the survivors are trapped inside an apartment building with no means of escape and no way to adequately defend themselves.
The film is paced marvelously, establishing its rules quickly, and without the need for huge amounts of clumsy exposition, and then begins an ebb and flow between periods of character recovery, followed by frantic action as the infected threaten to overwhelm the survivors.
There is just such a genuine and earnest feel to this film, reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the way that the glossy sheen common to well made movies is not present, and in its place is something which feels visceral, full of flawed but realistic characters.
If you like 28 days later or train to Busan, this is a must see.
They do a great job of putting the viewer right there in the film, the performances feel genuine, and before long you are just along for the ride, the cameraman being your eyes and ears into a world when the infected become aggressive, murderous and frenetic, and the survivors are trapped inside an apartment building with no means of escape and no way to adequately defend themselves.
The film is paced marvelously, establishing its rules quickly, and without the need for huge amounts of clumsy exposition, and then begins an ebb and flow between periods of character recovery, followed by frantic action as the infected threaten to overwhelm the survivors.
There is just such a genuine and earnest feel to this film, reminiscent of Texas Chainsaw Massacre in the way that the glossy sheen common to well made movies is not present, and in its place is something which feels visceral, full of flawed but realistic characters.
If you like 28 days later or train to Busan, this is a must see.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Operation Avalanche (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
You’ve heard me say it before. I’ll say it again. Before this year is out, I’ll say it in perhaps another article. The ‘found footage genre’ of movies was played out in perhaps its most notable appearance as well as its debut in the original ‘Blair Witch Project’. Now they’re gearing-up for another round of ‘beating a dead horse’ with a remake would you believe? However, I’m not here writing this article to go on and on and plague your eyes with an entire article complaining about the issue. No. Why you ask? For the unique reason which is since I’ve been writing reviews for movies, ‘Skewed & Reviewed’ has given me the good fortune to screen movies incorporating said genre that present ORIGINAL ideas. Today’s film for your consideration does so in the form of a unique period piece incorporating one of the most notorious conspiracy theories in the world with a pivotal moment in history. Not just in American history but global history.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
July 20th, 1969. Less than 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis in the midst of the Cold War the great ‘space race’ between the two world superpowers, the Soviet Union and the United States, is on. NASA astronauts Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong journey to the moon aboard the Apollo 11 spacecraft where Neil Armstrong becomes the first human being in history to set foot on the moon. That’s what the history books say. However, almost immediately after the crew of Apollo 11 returned to Earth there were many individuals on both sides who claimed not only was it not possible to land human beings safely on the moon and return them to Earth, but that NASA had faked the entire event in conjunction with other organizations and agencies within the American intelligence and military communities. This is where the basis for today’s film originates.
‘Operation Avalanche’ is an American-Canadian found footage/conspiracy thriller film directed by Matt Johnson who also starred in and co-wrote the film with Josh Boles. The film also stars Owen Williams, Jared Raab, Andrew Appelle, Madeleine Sims-Fewer, Krista Madison, Tom Bolton, and Sharon Belle. The film begins in 1967. The Central Intelligence Agency suspects that a Soviet mole has infiltrated NASA and is providing the Russians with information on American rocket technology. Four employees of the CIA are sent in undercover as a documentary film crew to determine if the agency’s suspicions are true and to determine the mole’s identity. Instead, what the discover sends shockwaves through the agency’s upper echelons and could potentially lead to a Soviet victory in the space race and bring to light one of the biggest conspiracies imaginable.
This movie is a brilliantly conceived and executed piece of film making. It not only includes historical news footage from the event, but combines it with a bit of guerrilla film-making. The film was shot in Toronto, Washington DC, and Houston, Texas. They were able to shoot on site at NASA by claiming they were shooting a documentary which was not entirely untrue. Essential they sort of broke the ‘fourth wall’ three times. The characters in the film were documentary film makers going undercover to shoot a documentary under the guise of a documentary film crew. The attention to detail from the locations, to the music, to the people themselves (how they looked, talked, and dressed) was something that one would imagine would’ve taken a larger budget. These folks pulled it off brilliantly essentially creating a period piece within the film. You get a genuine sense that the characters are who they act like they are in the particular time and place. Four CIA operatives looking to move up in the agency by moving themselves into place to be assigned to an undercover operation with low risk to themselves with the slight possibility of danger but then get caught up in a secret far bigger than anything they originally anticipated. The senses are heightened, the pace increases, and the conspiracy begins to unfold. The film is most definitely worth checking out. It kinda slows down a bit too much at certain points but all in all an excellent film. I’m going to give it 3 1/2 out of 5 stars. It’s certainly what I’d like to call a ‘thinking persons movie’. If you’re a fan of history, conspiracy theory, or both this film is certainly worth watching.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Director/Writer David Ayer (Street Kings, Training day) once again takes us into the world of the Los Angeles police department in the new movie End of Watch. Only this time rather than go in the corrupt police officer direction he has gone before, Ayer instead takes audiences on a honest and somewhat realistic emotionally charged ride along with two young and confident LAPD patrolmen.
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
While the story in this film is as simple as two cops over reaching their pay grades causing them to get on a drug cartels hit list. The film is more like an unrated extended episode of the TV series Cops, focusing on the everyday encounters of our heroes as they patrol south central LA. These encounters range from calls for lost children, domestic disturbance, and noise violations, albeit a bit exaggerated in these and several other incidents. Still the various types of encounters cause the film to feel like a true ride along into the lives of these LAPD cops. Additionally the use of the handheld “found footage” film style works surprisingly well at giving the movie that TV episodic style that makes the overall experience feel realistic. That being said, there are a few scenes where it is not clear who is holding the camera or where the shot is coming from, however these scenes are barely noticeable because of the excellent performances by our protagonists that keeps our interest on what they are saying and doing on screen rather than who is holding the camera.
Officer Bryan Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is our main protagonist of this movie. The ex-marine turned cop has to take an art elective in his pre-law studies and decides to take a documentary film class and take us on the inside of the LAPD. Gyllenhaal ‘s performance embodies Taylor as the good natured ambitious officer wanting more in his life of relationships and career. It would be easy for this character to be the traditional good cop in movies like this however given the found footage film style we instead find that Taylor, while good, can also be a complete “jerk” cop who is quick to anger and use brutish force when he deems necessary. This only helps solidify the rawness and reality of this film which pays a nod to the difficult nature of this job for real life police officers. Gyllenhaal gives yet another outstanding performance in his career causing us to grow attached to his character and respect him.
In addition Michel Pena (Crash) delivers a fantastic performance as Taylor’s partner and best friend Officer Mike Zavala. Pena embodies the other side to Gyllenhaal’s “jerk” cop by with his own good natured, simple man who is quick to become a bull when pushed. No more is this better shown in a scene where Zavala and a gang member get into a war of words and caused Zavala to drop his gun and badge and fight man to man to settle their dispute in the “street” way. Thus earning respect from that particular gang member.
Together Gyllenhaal and Pena share the screen wonderfully. Their relationship seems effortless and natural as if they were actually partners and best friends. You can tell they are having fun on set working together and it shows in their performance together as they really get a sense that they are more than partners and friends but are in fact, brothers. Their relationship and characters are only developed further as we watch Taylor pursue a deeper intellectual relationship with scientist Janet (Anna Kendrick, Up In The Air) and Zavala through the birth of his first born from wife Gabby (Natalie Martinez, Death Race). Kendrick and Martinez give believable performances as love interests to our heroes that show us a more human and softer side of these testosterone filled officers who will do whatever it takes to uphold the law. Throw in a strong supporting cast of other police officers led by Frank Grillo (Warrior) who plays the LAPD’s sergeant and you have a performance where we not only care about our heroes but we see the brotherhood of the police force in general.
One thing that I was not expecting from the film is the amount of moments where the audience literally laughed out loud. That is not to say that this is a comedy, in fact it is far from it. But the quick witted jokes and verbal jabs by our onscreen partners help alleviate some of the heavy emotional scenes of the movie. I felt that these characters used that good natured humor to keep themselves from going off of the deep end in handling all of the gruesome encounters they witness. These well placed laughs helped the audience deal with these gruesome scenes as well and helped strengthen our bond with these brothers.
All in all, this movie is a buddy cop film on steroids. While there is not much of a traditional story arch, this helps develop the realistic feel more like an unrated extended episode of Cops. That being said Gyllenhaal and Pena deliver a fantastic performance together. They have a real connection that makes you believe they have been partners for years and consider each other brothers. Add in a solid ensemble cast and the overall experience is worth the price of admission. However those who grow motion sick from found footage films may want to stay clear as there is a definite lack of steady cam
Sarah (126 KP) rated Evil Genius in TV
Aug 14, 2018
I found the beginning of Evil Genius to be truly, jaw-droppingly astonishing. Being in the UK, I don't remember ever actually hearing about this taking place. Having never heard or read anything about the case - or read any "blurb" about the series - I was genuinely shocked when witnessing the footage of what happens to Brian Wells. I honestly expected that things would "fizzle out", he would walk away with the police and the investigation would begin from there. Unsurprisingly, I spent the next few minutes with my eyes wide open, my mouth agape at what I had just witnessed.
Sadly, the documentary seems to go downhill from there.
The narrator/interviewer isn't particularly engaging in his commentary.
The story is somewhat disjointed, going from story to story, from suspect to suspect, without any real sense of flowing or logic. As such, at times it can feel a bit like you lose track of where you are and what has gone on, particularly when a thread is dropped only to be picked up later on, with additional information introduced but no logic to the way it has been brought in.
As something that seems to be a truly one-off type of crime, this should be such compelling viewing. Instead, after the initial shock-factor, it really does seem to fizzle out very quickly, and the only thing that compels you to keep watching is to find out what happened - and even that is something of a let down, as not all information seems to be followed up or confirmed.
Overall, it is an extremely interesting story which, unfortunately, has been let down by the way in which it has been put together.
Sadly, the documentary seems to go downhill from there.
The narrator/interviewer isn't particularly engaging in his commentary.
The story is somewhat disjointed, going from story to story, from suspect to suspect, without any real sense of flowing or logic. As such, at times it can feel a bit like you lose track of where you are and what has gone on, particularly when a thread is dropped only to be picked up later on, with additional information introduced but no logic to the way it has been brought in.
As something that seems to be a truly one-off type of crime, this should be such compelling viewing. Instead, after the initial shock-factor, it really does seem to fizzle out very quickly, and the only thing that compels you to keep watching is to find out what happened - and even that is something of a let down, as not all information seems to be followed up or confirmed.
Overall, it is an extremely interesting story which, unfortunately, has been let down by the way in which it has been put together.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Visit (2015) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
This movie, and I can't stress this enough, spends way too much time on the young kids budding rapping career. Not convinced I ever want to watch 13 year old white boys rap, let alone 3 or 4 seperate scenes of it...
Anyway, The Visit is pretty good (if you ignore the whole rapping part - not sure if I've mentioned that yet). It has a minimal yet great cast, some solid creepy moments, and a surprisingly grounded twist from the notoriously inconsistent M. Night Shyamalan.
Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould are likable as the two leads. The framing device of them filming a documentary about their estranged grandparents is a natural explanation for the 'found footage' camera style.
The stand out though is Deanna Dunagan as the grandma. Christ she is unsettlingly creepy, even when she's being kind. Her contribution to this film really lends the narrative as a whole, a huge help of tension. The slow burn nature of it is fantastically realised, and presents the audience with a decent mystery plot, and a chance to try and unravel what is really going on before the inevitable twist hits.
The twist itself is simple yet effective, and is certainly an "oh shit" moment, but unfortunately it leads to a final act that feels a bit over the top and silly. It shifts from an atmospheric creepy chiller to a sub par horror trying a little too hard to pack in the scares. It's a shame because 80% of the runtime is genuinely engaging!
Despite the lackluster ending, The Visit is a solid POV thriller that is head and shoulders above a huge chunk of Shyamalan's back catalogue, and is decent enough way to spend 90 minutes, except for the 3-4 minutes spent with the kid rapping...
Anyway, The Visit is pretty good (if you ignore the whole rapping part - not sure if I've mentioned that yet). It has a minimal yet great cast, some solid creepy moments, and a surprisingly grounded twist from the notoriously inconsistent M. Night Shyamalan.
Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould are likable as the two leads. The framing device of them filming a documentary about their estranged grandparents is a natural explanation for the 'found footage' camera style.
The stand out though is Deanna Dunagan as the grandma. Christ she is unsettlingly creepy, even when she's being kind. Her contribution to this film really lends the narrative as a whole, a huge help of tension. The slow burn nature of it is fantastically realised, and presents the audience with a decent mystery plot, and a chance to try and unravel what is really going on before the inevitable twist hits.
The twist itself is simple yet effective, and is certainly an "oh shit" moment, but unfortunately it leads to a final act that feels a bit over the top and silly. It shifts from an atmospheric creepy chiller to a sub par horror trying a little too hard to pack in the scares. It's a shame because 80% of the runtime is genuinely engaging!
Despite the lackluster ending, The Visit is a solid POV thriller that is head and shoulders above a huge chunk of Shyamalan's back catalogue, and is decent enough way to spend 90 minutes, except for the 3-4 minutes spent with the kid rapping...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated A Quiet Place: Part II (2021) in Movies
May 29, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
In A Quiet Place: Part II we get to see how it all started, the film begins on 'Day one' when the creatures first arrive (this is also most of the footage used in the trailer). At first glance this seems like an odd move as the film is advertised as sequel, however, this introduction serves as a reminder to the set up of the first film, a reminder as to who some of the characters are and does actually set up a couple of things for later on in the film.
The film soon jumps ahead and picks up almost directly where the first one left off, Evelyn Abbott (Emily Blunt) and family look for other survivors and try to find a way to use what they found out at the end of Part 1.
Like the first film Part 2 uses sound, or the lack of, to help build the suspense and switches between tense, atmospheric scenes, some action and jump scares. It can be slow in parts but this is all in scene setting and tension building.
One of the good thing about 'A Quiet Place: Part 2' is that it doesn't fall into the typical post apocalyptic trap that all survivor groups are sinister (Walking dead, I'm looking at you). In fact the film does make you think that that is the way it's going to go.
A Quiet Place: Part 2 is a sequel in the truest sense, as I said, after the first few scenes it picks up directly after the first film in a way that, if you haven't seen part one (or haven't seen it for a while) then you will be missing some quite important information so a re watch of part 1 may be a good idea.
The film soon jumps ahead and picks up almost directly where the first one left off, Evelyn Abbott (Emily Blunt) and family look for other survivors and try to find a way to use what they found out at the end of Part 1.
Like the first film Part 2 uses sound, or the lack of, to help build the suspense and switches between tense, atmospheric scenes, some action and jump scares. It can be slow in parts but this is all in scene setting and tension building.
One of the good thing about 'A Quiet Place: Part 2' is that it doesn't fall into the typical post apocalyptic trap that all survivor groups are sinister (Walking dead, I'm looking at you). In fact the film does make you think that that is the way it's going to go.
A Quiet Place: Part 2 is a sequel in the truest sense, as I said, after the first few scenes it picks up directly after the first film in a way that, if you haven't seen part one (or haven't seen it for a while) then you will be missing some quite important information so a re watch of part 1 may be a good idea.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 3, 2021
The original Halloween is such a goddam incredible movie, that anytime the franchise has tried to stray too far from its roots, the wheels just come off. The psychic stuff in Halloween 5 just didn't work. The cult stuff in Halloween 6 just didn't work. The found footage stuff in Resurrection just didn't work. This time around, it's a remake of the original, directed by Rob Zombie. His particular brand of hateful characters and nasty dialogue can be effective in other corners of horror, but when applied to the Halloween template, you guessed it, it just doesn't work.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
It has its moments - Malcolm McDowell is great as Dr Loomis, and the towering behemoth of a Michael Myers we get her is genuinely fucking terrifying. There's also a fine selection of genre icons here and there - Dee Wallace, Brad Dourif, Clint Howard, Ken Foree, Sybil Danning, Bill Moseley, Sid Haig, Danny Trejo, Danielle Harris - it's an impressive roster for sure.
All of this isn't enough to lift this remake above all of its problems however.
None of the characters are particularly likable, and it's off pacing make for a bloated experience, an issue that's further exacerbated by the more widely available Directors Cut, which further pans out its runtime with an horrifically unnecessary rape scene.
I can appreciate the decision to explore the origins of Michael, but the end results are very mixed. When the familiar stuff kicks off halfway through, it's actually kind of boring. It manages to ape the original at every turn, whilst simultaneously feeling disrespectful with it's token RZ tropes.
All in all, Halloween is a remake that I wouldn't take issue with, but the decision to put Zombie in the driver's seat results in a movie that doesn't feel like it belongs anywhere. An inferior re-tread in every aspect, that leaves a bitter after taste.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated London Has Fallen (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A disgusting attempt at film making
Executives down at Millennium Films must have been rubbing their hands together after the surprise success of their 2013 blockbuster, Olympus Has Fallen. After amassing a respectable $160million against a relatively small budget, a sequel was greenlit as soon as it rolled out of cinemas.
Fast-forward three years and its successor, London Has Fallen, starts off a busy Spring for the film industry. With much of the original cast reprising their roles, can lightning strike again? Or is this a shameless cash in?
Gerard Butler returns as secret agent Mike Banning, with Butler also in a producing role, assigned to protect President Benjamin Asher, Aaron Eckhart also reprising his role, in London as the pair attend the funeral of the British Prime Minister. Naturally, things taken a turn for the worse and both President Asher and Banning are caught in a deadly terrorist attack on the city.
The plot is downright ridiculous with Butler looking almost Terminator-like as he dispatches hundreds of vicious terrorists on the streets of London. Even the President gets in on the action, instead of you know, fleeing for safety like the leader of one of the biggest nations on Earth would do.
With the current climate, London Has Fallen is downright woeful, playing on our fears of urban terrorism like no film before it and after the shocking attacks in Paris last year, and for those still haunted by the memories of 7/7, it is in incredibly poor taste.
The dialogue and numerous plot holes only add salt to the wounds. If this was a serious drama, looking at the appalling ripples terrorism has across the world, then the central premise could be forgiven somewhat, but it isn’t and the uses of comedy throughout are truly dreadful, not once hitting the mark.
Elsewhere, the special effects are some of the worst ever put to film. A helicopter escape across London is laughable and the use of grainy stock footage is far too obvious. It’s clear that director Babak Najafi couldn’t film certain scenes on his tiny budget, instead deciding that dated archive footage was a reasonable substitute – it isn’t.
But by far the worst part of London Has Fallen is how it wastes its talented cast. Morgan Freeman, who stars as Vice President Allan Trumble, is leagues above the standard of this atrocity, and somehow manages to provide a sense of class throughout.
The cinematography is awful, especially towards the film’s sickly sweet finale, and many in the unsuspecting audience said it looked like a third-person video game as Gerard Butler somersaults his way around a poorly-lit construction site.
Overall, London Has Fallen is an appalling excuse for a film. As well as wasting a great cast, it continuously wields one of the world’s greatest fears like a child who’s found his dad’s gun, and for me, that is unforgivable. It may cram a lot of things into 99 minutes, but not a single one is done with any passion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/06/a-disgusting-attempt-at-film-making-london-has-fallen-review/
Fast-forward three years and its successor, London Has Fallen, starts off a busy Spring for the film industry. With much of the original cast reprising their roles, can lightning strike again? Or is this a shameless cash in?
Gerard Butler returns as secret agent Mike Banning, with Butler also in a producing role, assigned to protect President Benjamin Asher, Aaron Eckhart also reprising his role, in London as the pair attend the funeral of the British Prime Minister. Naturally, things taken a turn for the worse and both President Asher and Banning are caught in a deadly terrorist attack on the city.
The plot is downright ridiculous with Butler looking almost Terminator-like as he dispatches hundreds of vicious terrorists on the streets of London. Even the President gets in on the action, instead of you know, fleeing for safety like the leader of one of the biggest nations on Earth would do.
With the current climate, London Has Fallen is downright woeful, playing on our fears of urban terrorism like no film before it and after the shocking attacks in Paris last year, and for those still haunted by the memories of 7/7, it is in incredibly poor taste.
The dialogue and numerous plot holes only add salt to the wounds. If this was a serious drama, looking at the appalling ripples terrorism has across the world, then the central premise could be forgiven somewhat, but it isn’t and the uses of comedy throughout are truly dreadful, not once hitting the mark.
Elsewhere, the special effects are some of the worst ever put to film. A helicopter escape across London is laughable and the use of grainy stock footage is far too obvious. It’s clear that director Babak Najafi couldn’t film certain scenes on his tiny budget, instead deciding that dated archive footage was a reasonable substitute – it isn’t.
But by far the worst part of London Has Fallen is how it wastes its talented cast. Morgan Freeman, who stars as Vice President Allan Trumble, is leagues above the standard of this atrocity, and somehow manages to provide a sense of class throughout.
The cinematography is awful, especially towards the film’s sickly sweet finale, and many in the unsuspecting audience said it looked like a third-person video game as Gerard Butler somersaults his way around a poorly-lit construction site.
Overall, London Has Fallen is an appalling excuse for a film. As well as wasting a great cast, it continuously wields one of the world’s greatest fears like a child who’s found his dad’s gun, and for me, that is unforgivable. It may cram a lot of things into 99 minutes, but not a single one is done with any passion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/06/a-disgusting-attempt-at-film-making-london-has-fallen-review/
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Son of Frankenstein (1939) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Boris Karloff (3 more)
Bela Lugosi
Basil Rathbone
Lionel Atwill
The Monster's Alive Once More
Son of Frankenstein- is a great continuation of the frankenstein franchise. Boris Karloff os back as the monster but this would be the last time he would play the monster in the universal monster universe. Its sad cause when you think of frankenstein, you think of Boris.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
The plot: Baron Wolf von Frankenstein (Basil Rathbone) is determined to prove the legitimacy of his father's scientific work, thus rescuing the family name from disgrace. With the help of Ygor (Bela Lugosi), a grave robber, Wolf successfully reanimates the monster (Boris Karloff) his father originally brought back from the dead. But when several villagers are killed mysteriously, Wolf must find the culprit in order to vindicate his creation, or face the possibility that he may be responsible.
Universal's declining horror output was revitalized with the enormously successful Son of Frankenstein, in which the studio cast both stars.
After the ousting of the Laemmles from Universal and the British embargo on American horror films in 1936, Karloff and Lugosi found themselves in a career slump. For two years, horror films were out of favor at Universal Studios. On April 5, 1938, a nearly bankrupt theater in Los Angeles staged a desperate stunt by showing Frankenstein, Dracula and King Kong as a triple feature. The impressive box office results led to similarly successful revivals nationwide. Universal soon decided to make a big-budget Frankenstein sequel.
Son of Frankenstein marks changes in the Monster's character from Bride of Frankenstein. The Monster is duller and no longer speaks, explained by being injured by a lightning strike. The monster also wore a giant fur vest, not seen in the first two Frankenstein films, perhaps to add color to his appearance when the film was planned to be shot in color. He is fond of Ygor and obeys his orders. The Monster shows humanity in three scenes: first when he is disturbed by his image in a mirror, especially when compared to the Baron. Next, when he discovers Ygor's body, letting out a powerful scream, and later when he contemplates killing Peter but changes his mind. While the first two films were clearly set in the 1900s, this film appears to take place in the 1930s, judging by the appearance of a modern automobile.
Peter Lorre was originally cast as Baron Wolf von Frankenstein, but he had to leave the production when he became ill. Replacing Lorre was Basil Rathbone, who had scored a major triumph as Sir Guy of Gisbourne in The Adventures of Robin Hood, released the previous year.
According to the documentary Universal Horror (1998), the film was intended to be shot in color and some Technicolor test footage was filmed, but for artistic or budgetary reasons the plan was abandoned. No color test footage is known to survive, but a clip from a Kodachrome color home movie filmed at the studio and showing Boris Karloff in the green monster makeup, clowning around with makeup artist Jack Pierce, is included in the same documentary.
Its a excellent universal monster film.
Anthony Case (3 KP) rated American Horror Story in TV
Sep 9, 2017
Acting (2 more)
Directing (usually)
Fun Storylines
Each season of American Horror Story is a fresh slate. While some actors (Evan Peters and Sarah Paulson in particular) play similar characters each time, they all play the parts well, and the unique storylines are enough to keep things fresh. Sarah Paulson, Dennis O'Hare, Lily Rabe, and Jessica Lange are standouts every time they show up, but the recurring cast members are all fantastic.
Each season is a new story and Ryan Murphy loves to experiment with how he tells them. Season one, "Muder House," is a fairly standard psycho-sexual horror show. It was clearly building a base, so it skews a little into the "edge-lord teenager" demographic, which really is my inky complaint. Season two, "Asylum," is very experimental. They were trying to figure out what exactly they could get away with, and it turns out they could get away with a lot (though the aliens subplot was a bit too much). It's a very bleak season, with existential dread haunting the entirety of the season. Season three, "Coven," goes the complete opposite direction. It gets pretty campy, though the violence never is toned down. Season four, "Freak Show," is more stylized than previous seasons, and focuses far less on the ensemble. Instead, it is an intense character study of a homicidal rich white dude, which, admittedly, isn't for everyone. Season five, "Hotel," eschews storylines, instead focusing on establishing a crisp visual style (to varying success). Season six, "Roanoke," tackles two very popular subgenres, documentaries and found footage. It has an inspired twist halfway through the season.
There are definantely weak seasons, (Hotel was a mess, and I never really loved Coven's tone) but that's to be expected from an anthology show. The genius of seasons like Asylum and Roanoke should keep you coming back.
To close it out, I'll do a quick ranking for each season, from worst to best: Hotel, Coven, Murder House, Freak Show, Roanoke, Asylum. Hopefully Cult lives up to the high reputation the show has earned!
Each season is a new story and Ryan Murphy loves to experiment with how he tells them. Season one, "Muder House," is a fairly standard psycho-sexual horror show. It was clearly building a base, so it skews a little into the "edge-lord teenager" demographic, which really is my inky complaint. Season two, "Asylum," is very experimental. They were trying to figure out what exactly they could get away with, and it turns out they could get away with a lot (though the aliens subplot was a bit too much). It's a very bleak season, with existential dread haunting the entirety of the season. Season three, "Coven," goes the complete opposite direction. It gets pretty campy, though the violence never is toned down. Season four, "Freak Show," is more stylized than previous seasons, and focuses far less on the ensemble. Instead, it is an intense character study of a homicidal rich white dude, which, admittedly, isn't for everyone. Season five, "Hotel," eschews storylines, instead focusing on establishing a crisp visual style (to varying success). Season six, "Roanoke," tackles two very popular subgenres, documentaries and found footage. It has an inspired twist halfway through the season.
There are definantely weak seasons, (Hotel was a mess, and I never really loved Coven's tone) but that's to be expected from an anthology show. The genius of seasons like Asylum and Roanoke should keep you coming back.
To close it out, I'll do a quick ranking for each season, from worst to best: Hotel, Coven, Murder House, Freak Show, Roanoke, Asylum. Hopefully Cult lives up to the high reputation the show has earned!