Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Happy Death Day 2U (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Hands up if you laughed your way through this one? *throws hands up in the air*
This is where I love the horror genre, although I wouldn't really say this is horror. It's light-hearted and knows it doesn't need to take itself too seriously. It's sort of a horror comedy... A homedy? A corror? Definitely a homedy.
The trailer was a little misleading, I went in thinking that we were going to see them all stuck in the time loop which isn't the case. I'm probably happy that it ended up being different because I couldn't work out how they were going to do it otherwise.
When the original came out I was so happy to have discovered it. Horror is probably my least favourite genre but throw some homedy (it's happening people, go with it!) at me and I'm there for it. It's why I love the Screams and Final Destinations. HDD2U took it to another level, or should I say dimension?
While I loved this we could now have a potential problem, the third one could step over into Sharknado territory and become the parody but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it... and if I'm honest, this one was pretty close to that line anyway.
There's no way to deny the fact that 2 is riding on the coattails of its predecessor. It concentrates more on solving the cause of the loop rather than the mystery of who the killer is now and it isn't quite as compelling to watch. Neither is the fact that in this new loop we're given altered versions of the existing characters. We see a lot more of Danielle which if I'm honest isn't a good thing. She's still totes annoying but this time she brings a thespian side that leads to a truly terrible slapstick scene.
For sheer enjoyment as a follow on film it's brilliant but taken on its own merit it wouldn't get such high praise, but I had fun and that's what counts. I did see this for a second time and it unfortunately gave me more time to consider all the slightly dubious bits of it. It really hits hard on the sci-fi side of things, particularly in the mid-credit scene, and it doesn't feel quite right... now I'm wondering if it has already become its own parody...
What you should do
If you enjoyed the first one then you should totally see it, it's entertaining and much less serious about itself than the first but it's also much more ridiculous. Do remember to stay for the credit scene, you'll be able to see why I'm a little worried about any future endeavours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd probably still want Tree's fearlessness and resilience, but without having to die repeatedly to attain it.
This is where I love the horror genre, although I wouldn't really say this is horror. It's light-hearted and knows it doesn't need to take itself too seriously. It's sort of a horror comedy... A homedy? A corror? Definitely a homedy.
The trailer was a little misleading, I went in thinking that we were going to see them all stuck in the time loop which isn't the case. I'm probably happy that it ended up being different because I couldn't work out how they were going to do it otherwise.
When the original came out I was so happy to have discovered it. Horror is probably my least favourite genre but throw some homedy (it's happening people, go with it!) at me and I'm there for it. It's why I love the Screams and Final Destinations. HDD2U took it to another level, or should I say dimension?
While I loved this we could now have a potential problem, the third one could step over into Sharknado territory and become the parody but we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it... and if I'm honest, this one was pretty close to that line anyway.
There's no way to deny the fact that 2 is riding on the coattails of its predecessor. It concentrates more on solving the cause of the loop rather than the mystery of who the killer is now and it isn't quite as compelling to watch. Neither is the fact that in this new loop we're given altered versions of the existing characters. We see a lot more of Danielle which if I'm honest isn't a good thing. She's still totes annoying but this time she brings a thespian side that leads to a truly terrible slapstick scene.
For sheer enjoyment as a follow on film it's brilliant but taken on its own merit it wouldn't get such high praise, but I had fun and that's what counts. I did see this for a second time and it unfortunately gave me more time to consider all the slightly dubious bits of it. It really hits hard on the sci-fi side of things, particularly in the mid-credit scene, and it doesn't feel quite right... now I'm wondering if it has already become its own parody...
What you should do
If you enjoyed the first one then you should totally see it, it's entertaining and much less serious about itself than the first but it's also much more ridiculous. Do remember to stay for the credit scene, you'll be able to see why I'm a little worried about any future endeavours.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd probably still want Tree's fearlessness and resilience, but without having to die repeatedly to attain it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fight Club (1999) in Movies
May 7, 2020
Subversively Funny
The first rule of this review is that I cannot talk about this movie.
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The second rule of this review is that I CANNOT TALK ABOUT THIS MOVIE!
So...I'm going to talk about this movie.
David Fincher's 1999 mind-tripping epic about 2 friends who join forces to create chaos is not the movie that you think it is. Not even if you've seen it.
Directed by one of the my favorite Directors of all time, FIGHT CLUB tells the story of Edward Norton's character (who's name is never mentioned in the film) who is suffering from insomnia and an all around lack of enthusiasm for life - that is until he runs into 2 people that will profoundly change his life - Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter) and, especially, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt).
This film was poorly marketed by the studio at the time of it's release - focusing on the "FIGHT CLUB" aspect of this film - and if that is turning you away from this film, then you are missing out, for the "Fight Club" aspect is only one sliver of what this film is about. This film is an incredibly funny parody of society and "fitting in" with over-the-top scenarios and characters masquerading as people and events in "the real world".
David Fincher is perfectly suited for this work. He handled the pacing, style and subject matter with aplomb balancing seriousness and absurdity perfectly to create a subtle parody. It is a masterwork in that you don't notice his Direction - always a mark of a good Director.
Edward Norton, of course, is wonderfully cynical as the Narrator. When this film came out, I went to see it because of him - he was (is?) an actor that (more often than not) picks quality material and delivers a quality performance. Brad Pitt, of course, has the "showier" role and he nails it. This film marked the "coming out" of Pitt as an actor for me - and he hasn't stopped (right up until his deserved Oscar this year for ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD). But, it is the performance of Helena Bonham Carter that caught my eye on this re-watch. Fight Club is one of those films that becomes a different film upon a 2nd (and 3rd and 4th and 5th...) watch - mostly because of the change in perspective of the Marla character. I've now seen this film multiple times and in this viewing it was Marla's journey that captured my attention. It is a terrific performance that is an optical illusion.
This film is not for everyone - so be warned - but if you give it a shot, I think you'll find a richly rewarding - and subversively funny - movie going experience.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2019 (Updated May 27, 2019)
An abrupt and poorly executed end to the Dark Universe
Since The Mummy came out in 2017, Universals planned Dark Universe has come to a shuddering stop.
After watching this movie I can see why.
The movie starts off ok I guess, the pretty standard 'tomb raiding' you can expect from a Mummy film.
It Tom Cruise that starts to tank it for me - I've always been able to take or leave Tom Cruise. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don't, and in The Mummy, I definitely didn't. It just seems like he's playing a parody of himself at this point.
When we are introduced midway through the film to the plot device that was supposed to start linking The Mummy to future Dark Universe films - namely Russell Crowe as Jekkyl/Hyde - the movie falls apart even further, causing what little coherence it did have to slowly crumble.
Annabelle Wallace's character is reduced to someone who panders after Tom Cruise, even with his character constantly being an arsehole.
Jake Johnson's character is used as a weird exposition tool that pops randomly without rhyme or reason.
It's just all a little messy.
Some saving graces - The CGI effects or pretty good for the most part and I did quite like Sofia Boutella as The Mummy.
Maybe the first Brendan Frasier Mummy film was just a one off, which is kind of sad, as I was quite excited to see the Universal Monsters brought back to life.
After watching this movie I can see why.
The movie starts off ok I guess, the pretty standard 'tomb raiding' you can expect from a Mummy film.
It Tom Cruise that starts to tank it for me - I've always been able to take or leave Tom Cruise. Sometimes I like him, sometimes I don't, and in The Mummy, I definitely didn't. It just seems like he's playing a parody of himself at this point.
When we are introduced midway through the film to the plot device that was supposed to start linking The Mummy to future Dark Universe films - namely Russell Crowe as Jekkyl/Hyde - the movie falls apart even further, causing what little coherence it did have to slowly crumble.
Annabelle Wallace's character is reduced to someone who panders after Tom Cruise, even with his character constantly being an arsehole.
Jake Johnson's character is used as a weird exposition tool that pops randomly without rhyme or reason.
It's just all a little messy.
Some saving graces - The CGI effects or pretty good for the most part and I did quite like Sofia Boutella as The Mummy.
Maybe the first Brendan Frasier Mummy film was just a one off, which is kind of sad, as I was quite excited to see the Universal Monsters brought back to life.
Kaz (232 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019 (Updated Jun 15, 2019)
A Fun Superhero Movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I started watching 'Shazam' , I assumed that this was a parody of a super hero film. Afterwards I realised that this is a DC comic book character in it's own right.
I liked the acting in this film. Both children and adults in this film are believable and are very good. You could believe that the adult versions of the younger actors were actually them, because they emulated their body language and speech really well (they even looked like the children, as adults!). I really liked the interaction between adult Billy and his friend Freddy, they have some really funny scenes together. It was also nice to see a character with a disability as a main character, who wasn't portrayed as weak or someone you should feel sorry for.
There were some really funny moments in this film and there were some really heartfelt ones too.
My only criticisms of this film would be that it took a long time for this to really get going. Also, the story really isn't that original. It's basically the plot of 'Big' (I liked the scene with the giant piano, as a nod to this film) , combined with a super hero movie.
Despite these issues, I thought that this was a really funny, fun movie and I would quite happily watch a sequel of this.
I liked the acting in this film. Both children and adults in this film are believable and are very good. You could believe that the adult versions of the younger actors were actually them, because they emulated their body language and speech really well (they even looked like the children, as adults!). I really liked the interaction between adult Billy and his friend Freddy, they have some really funny scenes together. It was also nice to see a character with a disability as a main character, who wasn't portrayed as weak or someone you should feel sorry for.
There were some really funny moments in this film and there were some really heartfelt ones too.
My only criticisms of this film would be that it took a long time for this to really get going. Also, the story really isn't that original. It's basically the plot of 'Big' (I liked the scene with the giant piano, as a nod to this film) , combined with a super hero movie.
Despite these issues, I thought that this was a really funny, fun movie and I would quite happily watch a sequel of this.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Lord of the Things Book I: The Mellow Hip of the Thing in Books
Nov 20, 2019
This is by no means the first parody of Professor Tolkien's enduring (and weighty) fantasy tale, nor will it be the last. This is a broad retelling of the first book of the classic trilogy, and as such it's really only for people who are familiar with the source book.
This started as an online creation of a discussion group, later edited and extended by the author to the published version. The history shows in the writing, the first half being distinctly uneven in tone and with plenty of things that were no doubt funny to the group, but don't work so well without the background.
However once past Rivendell, things get a lot better (if no less silly), although the story does feel a little rushed. There are some good chuckles to be had throughout as fun is thoroughly poked at some of the rather po-faced pontification of the source text. Yes the jokes use the scattergun approach but enough hit the mark - certainly more later in the story - to make this an entertaining read.
This won't be to everyone's tastes - it is very very silly and the start can be a bit hard going - but this book is there purely to entertain, not to win any literature prizes. The thing is, for all of it's disposable puns, references and silly jokes just occasionally there's a glimpse of some real wit underneath it all.
This started as an online creation of a discussion group, later edited and extended by the author to the published version. The history shows in the writing, the first half being distinctly uneven in tone and with plenty of things that were no doubt funny to the group, but don't work so well without the background.
However once past Rivendell, things get a lot better (if no less silly), although the story does feel a little rushed. There are some good chuckles to be had throughout as fun is thoroughly poked at some of the rather po-faced pontification of the source text. Yes the jokes use the scattergun approach but enough hit the mark - certainly more later in the story - to make this an entertaining read.
This won't be to everyone's tastes - it is very very silly and the start can be a bit hard going - but this book is there purely to entertain, not to win any literature prizes. The thing is, for all of it's disposable puns, references and silly jokes just occasionally there's a glimpse of some real wit underneath it all.
The Pearly Prince of St Pancras
Alf Dole and Jeff Hudson
Book
Pearly Kings and Queens are one of the quintessential icons of 'old London', originally invented to...
Alice in Space: The Sideways Victorian World of Lewis Carroll
Book
In Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, Lewis Carroll created fantastic...
Ovid's Erotic Poems: Amores and Ars Amatoria
Publius Ovidius Naso, Len Krisak and Sarah Ruden
Book
The most sophisticated and daring poetic ironist of the early Roman Empire, Publius Ovidius Naso, is...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Frankenweenie (2012) in Movies
Oct 31, 2020
Black & White (3 more)
Dark
Tim Burton
Stop Motion
A Boys Best Friend
Frankenweenie- is a halloween classic. Ive wanted to watch this film for couple of years now and it was not disappointed.
The plot: Young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is a science nerd and outsider at school, but he does have one good friend: his dog, Sparky. But then, tragedy strikes, and Sparky shuffles off this mortal coil. Victor is heartbroken, but his science teacher (Martin Landau) gives him an idea of how to jolt old Sparky back to life. The experiment is successful, and all goes well, until Victor's fellow students steal his secret and use it to resurrect other dead animals -- with monstrous consequences.
It is a feature-length remake of Burton's 1984 short film of the same name and is also both a parody of and homage to the 1931 film Frankenstein, based on Mary Shelley's book of the same name.
This is the final horror film released under the Disney banner until Ready Or Not on August 21, 2019 from Fox Searchlight Pictures, which was bought by Disney in 2019.
The voice cast includes four actors who worked with Burton on previous films: Winona Ryder (Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands); Martin Short (Mars Attacks!); Catherine O'Hara (Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas); and Martin Landau (Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow), along with some new voice actors, such as Charlie Tahan and Atticus Shaffer.
Its a dark humor twisted film.
The plot: Young Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) is a science nerd and outsider at school, but he does have one good friend: his dog, Sparky. But then, tragedy strikes, and Sparky shuffles off this mortal coil. Victor is heartbroken, but his science teacher (Martin Landau) gives him an idea of how to jolt old Sparky back to life. The experiment is successful, and all goes well, until Victor's fellow students steal his secret and use it to resurrect other dead animals -- with monstrous consequences.
It is a feature-length remake of Burton's 1984 short film of the same name and is also both a parody of and homage to the 1931 film Frankenstein, based on Mary Shelley's book of the same name.
This is the final horror film released under the Disney banner until Ready Or Not on August 21, 2019 from Fox Searchlight Pictures, which was bought by Disney in 2019.
The voice cast includes four actors who worked with Burton on previous films: Winona Ryder (Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands); Martin Short (Mars Attacks!); Catherine O'Hara (Beetlejuice and The Nightmare Before Christmas); and Martin Landau (Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow), along with some new voice actors, such as Charlie Tahan and Atticus Shaffer.
Its a dark humor twisted film.
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated The Only Story in Books
Jan 10, 2018
Slightly irritating protagonist, but good story
This unusual romance is definitely not in the same ballpark as the likes of The Notebook and other such love stories - instead it begins as a pseudo-parody of the younger man-older woman genre - ending in a tragically realistic fashion.
Following the story of protagonist Paul, a 19-year-old man-child, attempts to find his feet in the world by defying social conventions. Enter Susan, a married woman with two grown children even older than Paul. Beginning innocently after joining a tennis club, Paul seems to grow increasingly attracted to the almost middle-aged woman, but is clearly ambiguous about his motives for pursuing her. Is it out of sheer rebellion against his traditional upbringing or just another yarn to tell his university friends? What does become increasingly apparent is that it is not just a summer affair, as things start to unravel over time. The question posed by the book at the end is: "Would you rather love the more, and suffer the more; or love the less, and suffer the less?"
As per usual, Julian Barnes is a unique storyteller, able to adapt his writing every single time. It is vastly different from some of his other works such as The Noise of Time, which is written almost like a Russian classic. This, on the other hand, is written in an honest first-person narrative, sounding genuinely like a happy-go-lucky teenager. While it is not a perfect story, especially as the chronology feels inconsistent, it is an easy read.
Following the story of protagonist Paul, a 19-year-old man-child, attempts to find his feet in the world by defying social conventions. Enter Susan, a married woman with two grown children even older than Paul. Beginning innocently after joining a tennis club, Paul seems to grow increasingly attracted to the almost middle-aged woman, but is clearly ambiguous about his motives for pursuing her. Is it out of sheer rebellion against his traditional upbringing or just another yarn to tell his university friends? What does become increasingly apparent is that it is not just a summer affair, as things start to unravel over time. The question posed by the book at the end is: "Would you rather love the more, and suffer the more; or love the less, and suffer the less?"
As per usual, Julian Barnes is a unique storyteller, able to adapt his writing every single time. It is vastly different from some of his other works such as The Noise of Time, which is written almost like a Russian classic. This, on the other hand, is written in an honest first-person narrative, sounding genuinely like a happy-go-lucky teenager. While it is not a perfect story, especially as the chronology feels inconsistent, it is an easy read.
