Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Jay and Silent Bob Reboot (2019) in Movies
Mar 7, 2020
To put it simply, if you're not too keen on anything related to Jay & Silent Bob or Kevin Smith, then this entry is not going to change your mind!
The first film from way back in 2001 was already loveably dumb enough. It's collision of immature humour, social commentary, slapstick silliness and plentiful references to past Kevin Smith projects leant it an awkward charm, and things are no different this time around, with exception of everyone involved looking older.
The plot revolves around the titular duo traveling to Hollywood to stop the reboot of a comic book film featuring characters based on their likenesses (literally the same plot as the first). Cue plenty of remarks about the state of cinema and the unstoppable geyser of reboots/remakes/re-imaginings, followed by an absurd road trip, and everything feels familiar and homely.
Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith are just as likable as they every have been as Jay & SB, and the supporting characters, lead by Smith's daughter Harley Quinn, are much the same (although they took a bit longer to grow on me).
There is a veritable plethora of cameos and Clerks call backs peppered throughout, including the likes of Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Chris Hemsworth, Joey Lauren Adams, Melissa Benoist, Val Kilmer, Jason Biggs, Robert Kirkman....the list goes on and on. None of these inclusions feel particularly forced, and everyone seems pretty willing to be a part of the silliness.
The script is a mixed bag of decent gags, meta lines (sometimes a bit too over the top, to the point of almost insulting the audience!), Kevin Smith talking a whole bunch of shit about himself and some genuinely touching moments. Seriously - towards the films climax, I genuinely fretted that i might let out a little sob...
The truth is, I grew up watching films like Clerks, Dogma, Mallrats etc, and whenever a new entry is put out, I remember just how much these niche comedies mean to me. Jay & Silent Bob Reboot fits right in there with the rest of them.
It's not perfect by any means, but this is a film that can pull off Chris Jericho playing a KKK leader, Redman and Method Man giving parenting, whilst still including a lip wobbling tribute to the late Stan Lee (a we'll know fan of Kevin Smith and his work). How can anyone not appreciate that!?
The first film from way back in 2001 was already loveably dumb enough. It's collision of immature humour, social commentary, slapstick silliness and plentiful references to past Kevin Smith projects leant it an awkward charm, and things are no different this time around, with exception of everyone involved looking older.
The plot revolves around the titular duo traveling to Hollywood to stop the reboot of a comic book film featuring characters based on their likenesses (literally the same plot as the first). Cue plenty of remarks about the state of cinema and the unstoppable geyser of reboots/remakes/re-imaginings, followed by an absurd road trip, and everything feels familiar and homely.
Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith are just as likable as they every have been as Jay & SB, and the supporting characters, lead by Smith's daughter Harley Quinn, are much the same (although they took a bit longer to grow on me).
There is a veritable plethora of cameos and Clerks call backs peppered throughout, including the likes of Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, Chris Hemsworth, Joey Lauren Adams, Melissa Benoist, Val Kilmer, Jason Biggs, Robert Kirkman....the list goes on and on. None of these inclusions feel particularly forced, and everyone seems pretty willing to be a part of the silliness.
The script is a mixed bag of decent gags, meta lines (sometimes a bit too over the top, to the point of almost insulting the audience!), Kevin Smith talking a whole bunch of shit about himself and some genuinely touching moments. Seriously - towards the films climax, I genuinely fretted that i might let out a little sob...
The truth is, I grew up watching films like Clerks, Dogma, Mallrats etc, and whenever a new entry is put out, I remember just how much these niche comedies mean to me. Jay & Silent Bob Reboot fits right in there with the rest of them.
It's not perfect by any means, but this is a film that can pull off Chris Jericho playing a KKK leader, Redman and Method Man giving parenting, whilst still including a lip wobbling tribute to the late Stan Lee (a we'll know fan of Kevin Smith and his work). How can anyone not appreciate that!?
A suspenseful read about the ownership of stories
Jacob Finch Bonner, the once promising author of the debut novel The Invention of Wonder, is now a struggling writer teaching at Ripley College in Vermont. At Ripley, basically anyone can attend to receive a MFA. This includes Evan Parker, a pompous jerk who declares he doesn't need Jake--or anyone's--help to make his novel a success. But when Evan actually deigns to share his plot with Jake, Jake can't help but agree. He waits for Evan's inevitable success, but it never comes. When he learns that Evan has died--without having published his book--Jake feels that his story must be told. So Jake writes it, and he is soon basking in the success he was so sure Evan would have. He's rich, famous, and touring the country on a book tour. But then he receives the first email: "You are a thief." Jake feels everything he has about to slip away. As the threats increase, Jake begins to dig into Evan's past. What he finds is horrifying--he may not be the only one who stole this story--and the consequences could be deadly.
"All Jacob Finch Bonnner had ever wanted to be was a writer."
THE PLOT starts off slowly, but then takes off, becoming a compulsively readable thriller. It's incredibly ominous and creepy and peppered with reading and writer references. If you love to read, or write, there's a whole meta layer to this book. (Not to mention, we get pieces of Jake's "stolen" novel within our novel as well.) Slowly everything untangles: Jacob's plot, Evan's life, and more.
"Evan Parker had been entirely correct: the worst writer on the planet could not mess up a plot like this."
The book builds on, year by year, as Jacob moves from his struggling writer days to a successful and famous novelist. I had an inkling of some of what happened, but enjoyed reading to see if I was right. Jake isn't exactly a sympathetic character, but he's fascinating, and the book certainly makes you think.
It's best to go into THE PLOT blind, so I don't want to reveal too much. But I stayed up late to finish it, because it's quite captivating--and different. I certainly recommend it. 4 stars.
"All Jacob Finch Bonnner had ever wanted to be was a writer."
THE PLOT starts off slowly, but then takes off, becoming a compulsively readable thriller. It's incredibly ominous and creepy and peppered with reading and writer references. If you love to read, or write, there's a whole meta layer to this book. (Not to mention, we get pieces of Jake's "stolen" novel within our novel as well.) Slowly everything untangles: Jacob's plot, Evan's life, and more.
"Evan Parker had been entirely correct: the worst writer on the planet could not mess up a plot like this."
The book builds on, year by year, as Jacob moves from his struggling writer days to a successful and famous novelist. I had an inkling of some of what happened, but enjoyed reading to see if I was right. Jake isn't exactly a sympathetic character, but he's fascinating, and the book certainly makes you think.
It's best to go into THE PLOT blind, so I don't want to reveal too much. But I stayed up late to finish it, because it's quite captivating--and different. I certainly recommend it. 4 stars.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Matrix Resurrections (2021) in Movies
Dec 25, 2021 (Updated Dec 30, 2021)
Before watching The Matrix Resurrections, I was pretty much in the mindset that it didn't need to exist. The finished product did nothing to change my mind, however, it was entertaining enough that I genuinely enjoyed being back in this universe for another spin.
The whole narrative kind of felt inconsequential. Whereas in the original trilogy, Neo was woken up to save humanity. This time round, he's woken up for reasons that aren't made clear whatsoever, or at least, if they were then I completely missed them. By the time the story concludes, I found myself thinking "that was cool, but did anything actually happen?"
Like so many franchises these days, Resurrections leans heavily into nostalgia territory. I'm indifferent to this in all honesty. I see why some take issue with it, but I don't hate it. It doesn't feel too over the top, but the movie tries to get away with it by including a lot of meta dialogue about sequels and reboots. Some if it lands, some of it is horrifically on the nose. All of this combined really gives the impression that Resurrections purely exists to make money. The original sequels are riddled with issues, but at least it felt like a story was being told.
All of this being said, I still had a damn good time. It's a pleasure to see Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss back together, and it successfully hammers home that The Matrix was always centered around the love between Neo and Trinity. The supporting cast ain't too shabby either. Jessica Henwick is great, as is Yahya Abdul-Mateen and Neil Patrick Harris. The action scenes don't quite reach iconic status, but are still a blast to watch unfold, and the whole thing is visually pleasing, as is expected.
Resurrections is ultimately a mixed bag. There's plenty of material to enjoy, but there's equally a whole bunch of ideas that aren't executed particularly well. Unfortunately for any films that followed, the original movie is pretty much untouchable, but to its credit, Resurrections doesn't flinch in its commitment to remain part of a layered sci-fi saga, despite its blockbuster status, and for that, I can respect what Lana Wachowski has cooked up, even if it feels a little shallow at times.
The whole narrative kind of felt inconsequential. Whereas in the original trilogy, Neo was woken up to save humanity. This time round, he's woken up for reasons that aren't made clear whatsoever, or at least, if they were then I completely missed them. By the time the story concludes, I found myself thinking "that was cool, but did anything actually happen?"
Like so many franchises these days, Resurrections leans heavily into nostalgia territory. I'm indifferent to this in all honesty. I see why some take issue with it, but I don't hate it. It doesn't feel too over the top, but the movie tries to get away with it by including a lot of meta dialogue about sequels and reboots. Some if it lands, some of it is horrifically on the nose. All of this combined really gives the impression that Resurrections purely exists to make money. The original sequels are riddled with issues, but at least it felt like a story was being told.
All of this being said, I still had a damn good time. It's a pleasure to see Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss back together, and it successfully hammers home that The Matrix was always centered around the love between Neo and Trinity. The supporting cast ain't too shabby either. Jessica Henwick is great, as is Yahya Abdul-Mateen and Neil Patrick Harris. The action scenes don't quite reach iconic status, but are still a blast to watch unfold, and the whole thing is visually pleasing, as is expected.
Resurrections is ultimately a mixed bag. There's plenty of material to enjoy, but there's equally a whole bunch of ideas that aren't executed particularly well. Unfortunately for any films that followed, the original movie is pretty much untouchable, but to its credit, Resurrections doesn't flinch in its commitment to remain part of a layered sci-fi saga, despite its blockbuster status, and for that, I can respect what Lana Wachowski has cooked up, even if it feels a little shallow at times.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Deadpool (2016) in Movies
Jul 21, 2017
Ryan Reynolds (2 more)
Hilarious Throughout
Energetic Score
Even Better Than A Chimichanga
Many thought that this movie would never get made, but I am very glad that it did. The movie serves as a long awaited origin story to Deadpool, that is fairly faithful to the comic book, at least more so than the previous iteration that we got of the character. Ryan Reynolds is fantastic in the Deadpool role, he truly was born to play the merc with a mouth in my opinion. Deadpool here is crass, funny, violent and energetic as well as being pretty faithful to comic book Deadpool, with the only thing missing from this version being the multiple voices in his head, but I am pretty sure that we will see that character trait develop in future Deadpool movies. The plot is pretty simple, we are introduced to Deadpool and shown how he got his powers after being diagnosed with incurable cancer via flashback. From there we basically follow him while he attempts to track down Ajax, or Francis, (the guy that turned him into Deadpool and made him deformed,) so that he can cure his skin and give him back his good looks. The one thing that was always going to either make or break this movie, was the humour. However they capture the meta humour perfectly here, which is an essential component of what makes up this character and is one of the main reasons why so many people love him. The movie is chock full of clever fourth wall breaks and pop culture references. The film was granted an R rating by the studio and the filmmakers take full advantage of that fact, with constant blood splatter and f-bombs being dropped left and right. The hip hop based score adds to the energetic tone of the movie and the action scenes are exciting throughout.
All of this results in setting up a Deadpool universe that is full of potential, we already know that we are getting a sequel, probably featuring Cable and possibly introducing the X force, plus I am very curious whether or not we will get to see Deadpool being integrated into the larger X Men universe, it would be really cool to see him interacting with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine, since he is the butt of several jokes in the Deadpool movie.
Overall, whether you are a fan of the Deadpool comic or not, as long as you are into crass humour, over the top cartoon violence and R rated superhero movies, then there is no reason why you won’t love this movie. It is also the best Fox superhero movie that we have had and it is the best R rated superhero movie ever produced.
All of this results in setting up a Deadpool universe that is full of potential, we already know that we are getting a sequel, probably featuring Cable and possibly introducing the X force, plus I am very curious whether or not we will get to see Deadpool being integrated into the larger X Men universe, it would be really cool to see him interacting with Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine, since he is the butt of several jokes in the Deadpool movie.
Overall, whether you are a fan of the Deadpool comic or not, as long as you are into crass humour, over the top cartoon violence and R rated superhero movies, then there is no reason why you won’t love this movie. It is also the best Fox superhero movie that we have had and it is the best R rated superhero movie ever produced.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The latest from Sylvester Stallone since 2008’s Rambo, The Expendables is a movie where the testosterone flows like enemy blood. Both movies have similar themes of redemption, regret, and courage, and also thankfully similar is that the moments of awesomeness are plentiful. The Expendables put up a lot of hype, and it had a lot to live up to with it’s cast of action star greats, but it doesn’t let the audience down. It’s not the cerebral meta-violence of Inglorious Basterds, but a simpler, old-school, fun action movie kind of violence. You can root for your favorite action hero, watch them kick a little bad-guy ass, and sit back and enjoy the show.
The characters, despite the star-studded name dropping on the film’s advertising hype, follow Barney Ross (Stallone) for the most part, and his right-hand-man Lee Christmas (Statham) a close second, with most of the other actors merely rounding out the team. Despite what would seem to be a ripoff from what they advertised on their posters, each character still gets a crowning moment of glory, albeit with less screen time than expected. In addition, these “major” side characters share frequent snide remarks that truly give each person on the team their own humorous depth of character. If you’re a fan of Jet Li or Terry Crews for example, rest assured that they all get their shining moment in the sun.
The plot, while not so simple as to be boring, surrounds an attempt by the team to overthrow a dictator in a small South American country. Complications arise, interpersonal conflicts come up, and from there, the plot takes off. Mercenary soldiers do a lot of bad things, and Stallone and co-screenwriter Dave Callaham give a good shot at prying open the inner world of some of these men as they go about their jobs, and the consequences that their actions (and often inactions) have on the way they see themselves. Granted, this is a fairly emotional touchy-feely way to describe the heart of the film, but don’t worry, these discussions are done with the stoicism and deflective humor you would expect from large men with bulging muscles and raging testosterone. The Expendables isn’t just another mindless action movie; it’s got enough going on beneath the surface to be worth watching again.
For an action blockbuster, it succeeds on most of the metrics we measure such films by, and surprisingly didn’t have many negatives. Do I care about the characters? Yes. Were there long periods without action sequences? No. Was the use of action cliche, or was it clever and original? Hilariously original at times. Was it fun? That’s an explosive yes.
The characters, despite the star-studded name dropping on the film’s advertising hype, follow Barney Ross (Stallone) for the most part, and his right-hand-man Lee Christmas (Statham) a close second, with most of the other actors merely rounding out the team. Despite what would seem to be a ripoff from what they advertised on their posters, each character still gets a crowning moment of glory, albeit with less screen time than expected. In addition, these “major” side characters share frequent snide remarks that truly give each person on the team their own humorous depth of character. If you’re a fan of Jet Li or Terry Crews for example, rest assured that they all get their shining moment in the sun.
The plot, while not so simple as to be boring, surrounds an attempt by the team to overthrow a dictator in a small South American country. Complications arise, interpersonal conflicts come up, and from there, the plot takes off. Mercenary soldiers do a lot of bad things, and Stallone and co-screenwriter Dave Callaham give a good shot at prying open the inner world of some of these men as they go about their jobs, and the consequences that their actions (and often inactions) have on the way they see themselves. Granted, this is a fairly emotional touchy-feely way to describe the heart of the film, but don’t worry, these discussions are done with the stoicism and deflective humor you would expect from large men with bulging muscles and raging testosterone. The Expendables isn’t just another mindless action movie; it’s got enough going on beneath the surface to be worth watching again.
For an action blockbuster, it succeeds on most of the metrics we measure such films by, and surprisingly didn’t have many negatives. Do I care about the characters? Yes. Were there long periods without action sequences? No. Was the use of action cliche, or was it clever and original? Hilariously original at times. Was it fun? That’s an explosive yes.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Too Good To Be Real: A Novel in Books
Jul 22, 2021
A very meta romantic comedy
Julia is a writer desperate to save her job. She's tired of posting nothing but quizzes and lists. So she pitches an article to her boss in an attempt to save her job: a new resort that's letting its guests live out their romantic comedy dreams via role playing. Julia doesn't believe in love, of course, but she'll play along if it means keeping her job. But when she and her two best friends show up, she meets a handsome man by the lake via the quintessential meet-cute: a humorous seagull incident. She thinks Luke is taking part in the rom-com experience, but he's actually one of the event planners, along with his best friend and sister. Luke decides to take part in the experience in order to impress a reviewer arriving. Sparks fly between the two, but can their love be real when no one is being honest about who they are?
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
"I'm as likely to find the wardrobe to Narnia as I am to find my own Mark Darcy. Life isn't like a romantic comedy."
This was a perfectly cute romantic comedy and it's important to remember that 3-stars is in no way a negative rating. Did this book wow me or sweep me off my feet? No. But it had its funny moments.
The concept is an interesting and original one: a rom-com resort, where guests are assigned a character, a role to play, select activities, and then the games begin. The characters get funny names associated with famous romantic comedies (think Sally, a la Harry Met Sally) and there are a ton of references to all sorts of rom-com favorites. If you're a romantic comedy fan, you'll love all the little inside jokes.
"For the chance to achieve his dreams, Luke had to do one thing. Make the fantasy real."
I liked Julia's character and enjoyed Luke, although I must admit the guy was a bit of a clueless idiot. The seagulls were easily the best characters in the book and some of their scenes made me laugh out loud. I'm never a fan of "lying by omission" plots, so it was a little hard to stomach that the story that was based off of falsehoods. Julia and Luke did have chemistry but also suffered a bit from instalove--maybe it was the seagulls?
Overall, this is a fun, fairly quick read, peppered with rom-com references. It's definitely silly and a bit cheesy, but sweet too. 3 stars.
I received a copy of this book from St. Martin's Press and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Jan 29, 2022
Ghostface (up until the reveal) (2 more)
The kills
Chemistry between Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox
Terrible killer reveal (2 more)
Rehashes everything from the original film.
Too meta for its own good
Movies Make Psychos More Imitative
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Scream franchise has always been this love letter to the horror genre while simultaneously embracing this self-deprecating demeanor that was meta long before it was the trendy thing for movies to do. All of the films would lay out the rules of a slasher or horror sequel while sometimes following a familiar formula, but often broke the boundaries of the stabby, blood-soaked mold it was proud to pretend to stay within the lines of.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Now, 11 years after Scream 4, Scream not only references its roots it drowns itself in the accomplishments of the previous films. The film is a huge nostalgic throwback to the first films, especially the original and Scream 4. But nearly every new character introduced in the new film is related to someone in a previous Scream film.
The film opens with Ghostface calling and playing a horror trivia game over the phone with some unsuspecting high school girl, the killer is narrowed down to once again be one of a close-knit group of friends, and the finale literally takes place in the house of one of the characters from the first film.
It’s established within Scream’s dialogue that the film isn’t a reboot or a sequel, but a requel. It brings back legacy characters to make way for new blood while staying within a formula that is almost a carbon copy of the original film. The kills are a little different, the technology is modern, and Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are all older, but this all feels too familiar to feel like a refreshing entry in the franchise.
The highlight of the film is obviously Ghostface. Roger L. Jackson, the voice of Ghostface, is the unsung and unseen hero (or villain) of the franchise. He has not only been the voice of Ghostface for all five films, but was also the voice of Ghostface in season three of the television series. We’ll ignore the fact that who the killer turns out to be has a serious height difference in comparison to whoever is running around the rest of the film, but there are some pretty brutal moments here; his leg stomp to Tara in the film’s opening, the knife through the neck scene where we see the blade go through the victim’s throat and out the side to surprisingly satisfactory results, and even a kill on the sidewalk in front of someone’s house in broad daylight.
Ghostface has his most memorable kill while using two knives in the hall of a private floor of a hospital and it’s fantastic. The original film is a personal favorite, but there are several scenes where you can see another and seemingly cheaper and less detailed mask is used (the opening scene where Drew Barrymore gets stabbed on the front lawn comes to mind). There’s none of that in the new film as Ghostface shines in absolutely every sequence until he’s unmasked.
Characters from previous films that were stabbed or shot or both, but were never shown dying on screen were rumored to appear in this film. The most notable being Hayden Penettiere’s Kirby Reed from Scream 4 and Matthew Lillard’s Stu Macher from the original. Unfortunately, the return of either character would have been more interesting than what we ended up with.
Sisters Sam and Tara Carpenter (played by Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega) have an interesting character connection that results in a repeating Tell-Tale Heart motivation that could finally trigger Sam losing her sanity. The twins, Mindy and Chad (played by Jasmin Savoy Brown and Mason Gooding) are arguably the most useful. Next to Jack Quaid’s performance as Richie, Jasmin Savoy Brown may deliver the best performance from the new cast members.
The aspects that make the Scream franchise scary and suspenseful is the fact that Ghostface is just a horror obsessed human much like the people watching the film from the other side of the screen. Before the killer or killers are revealed, everyone is a suspect and Ghostface can be anyone behind the mask. That sense of dread that lies within never feeling safe even around your family and best friends while simultaneously watching them get slaughtered one by one while you helplessly sit on the sidelines are terrifying concepts that would drive anyone crazy in real life.
The killer(s) in Scream are trying to claim the same kind of legacy Billy Loomis and Stu Macher received; the movie franchise based on their killings, the fame, and the notoriety. Scream is a movie formulated around another movie (the 1996 Scream) that has a movie franchise within the movie franchise (Stab) that is constantly referencing itself and other films in the genre all while trying to erase its ugliest moments. It’s exhausting and disappointing at the same time.
Ghostface is my favorite cinematic serial killer and I love the first four films (yes, even Scream 3 and Gale’s terrible bangs) despite their flaws and fluctuating factors of entertainment. I’ll see and support any new Scream film or TV series that comes along because of it. I know this new installment was successful and some enjoyed it, but it is honestly my least favorite in the franchise.
This new film feels like it’s trying too hard to be one of the original Scream films when it should have just been more of its own thing. This is something the film addresses, but originality should always triumph over retreading familiar territory; especially when it seems like its kills are being plunged into the same stab wounds.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney has made a career in books after the events in the films, she is completing her latest book tour right where it all started. With her back in town the killings start up again, Sidney must be the role model for her cousin who is going through the same situation she once did. Gale is now married to Dewey, she has given up the spotlight, but craves getting back into the field with the new killings offering her the chance. Dewey is now the sheriff who must now control the situation before it gets out of hand. We get the new potential victims or suspects here with Jill being Sidney’s cousin always tired of being in the shadow of her more famous family member, Kirby the rebellious teenager, Robbie who is filming every moment of his life for a reality YouTube network and Charlie is the leader of the film club. These characters do fit around the moulds of the original teens too.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Perfect Genesis: Adolescence in Books
Nov 21, 2019
This is a book of many levels and many emotions. Superficially it is a far-future science fiction book where societies have been engineered by some planet-spanning intelligence to create stable and sustainable places for humans to live. Under this runs a strong current of philosophy and meta physics about exactly what this means for the individuals involved - and the news isn't good.
The plot follows Leonardo Khalid, a genetically engineered genius who has dedicated his life to improving life for mankind. However when he is taken critically ill he agrees to undergo a procedure to scan and record is brain. He is warned that during the process he will appear to inhabit a very real and long lasting dream as his brain is stimulated.
The dream is extremely vivid - so much so that we don't see it just from Leonardo's point of view. So is it a dream? Or a very real future world that he has somehow been projected into? Leonardo certainly believes he is in a dream, but does that condone some of his more morally questionable actions?
There are plenty of questions raised by this book. As Hogan says in a brief introduction, this book is supposed to stay with the reader long after they have read it, and it will certainly do that. At times it is an uncomfortable read - the dream societies place little value on human life and women in particular are treated very badly. Death, violence and sexual exploitation are daily hazards for the members of the societies described, but these are engineered places, not designed to benefit the individual human but to ensure the longevity of the society itself. They have been created with cold and clinical efficiency with no regard for the individual members of the citizenry.
This is a huge dichotomy and the heart of the book. The story itself - Leonardo exploring the land of his dream and overcoming the various obstacles that hinder him and his companions - skates along the top at a good pace, fizzing between plot points and twists, summoning the reader on to read just one more page. But underneath the dark heart will be throwing up awkward questions.
Exploitation of all sorts abounds, particularly sexual exploitation (not all of it men exploiting women). These sections can be an uncomfortable read but they are supposed to be - the questions around power and the abuse of power are valid and the reader is not supposed to be entirely sympathetic with any of the characters or their actions - even Leornardo. The civilisations are frequently brutal, either because of a dangerous environment or a ruthless ruler. People get hurt, people get abused, people die (sometimes horribly) but always the society lives on.
Read this book if you want to have a fantastic story exploring different places but at the same time have something to think about. By the end you will have seen what can happen if the concept of an ideal society is pursued to its limits. And it's not a utopia.
And yes this book will stay with me for a while. Definitely one of the best reads of 2014. Thoroughly recommended.
Rating: Sexual scenes, sexual violence and some torture.
The plot follows Leonardo Khalid, a genetically engineered genius who has dedicated his life to improving life for mankind. However when he is taken critically ill he agrees to undergo a procedure to scan and record is brain. He is warned that during the process he will appear to inhabit a very real and long lasting dream as his brain is stimulated.
The dream is extremely vivid - so much so that we don't see it just from Leonardo's point of view. So is it a dream? Or a very real future world that he has somehow been projected into? Leonardo certainly believes he is in a dream, but does that condone some of his more morally questionable actions?
There are plenty of questions raised by this book. As Hogan says in a brief introduction, this book is supposed to stay with the reader long after they have read it, and it will certainly do that. At times it is an uncomfortable read - the dream societies place little value on human life and women in particular are treated very badly. Death, violence and sexual exploitation are daily hazards for the members of the societies described, but these are engineered places, not designed to benefit the individual human but to ensure the longevity of the society itself. They have been created with cold and clinical efficiency with no regard for the individual members of the citizenry.
This is a huge dichotomy and the heart of the book. The story itself - Leonardo exploring the land of his dream and overcoming the various obstacles that hinder him and his companions - skates along the top at a good pace, fizzing between plot points and twists, summoning the reader on to read just one more page. But underneath the dark heart will be throwing up awkward questions.
Exploitation of all sorts abounds, particularly sexual exploitation (not all of it men exploiting women). These sections can be an uncomfortable read but they are supposed to be - the questions around power and the abuse of power are valid and the reader is not supposed to be entirely sympathetic with any of the characters or their actions - even Leornardo. The civilisations are frequently brutal, either because of a dangerous environment or a ruthless ruler. People get hurt, people get abused, people die (sometimes horribly) but always the society lives on.
Read this book if you want to have a fantastic story exploring different places but at the same time have something to think about. By the end you will have seen what can happen if the concept of an ideal society is pursued to its limits. And it's not a utopia.
And yes this book will stay with me for a while. Definitely one of the best reads of 2014. Thoroughly recommended.
Rating: Sexual scenes, sexual violence and some torture.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Asteroid City (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Too "Wes Anderson" For It's Own Good
If you watched the Oscar Nominated Wes Anderson film THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL back in 2014 and thought to yourself - “I want more of this type of thing - only turned up to 11”, then does the BankofMarquis have a film for you.
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)