Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mr. Holmes (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Sir Ian McKellen is magnificent
Sherlock Holmes is hot property at the moment. Robert Downey Jr has played the titular detective in two box-office behemoths and Benedict Cumberbatch is supremely popular across the globe for his take on the character.
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
Now, Sir Ian McKellen is giving it a go in the little-publicised BBC funded Mr Holmes. But does it continue the trend of crafting intriguing dramas from the stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls and the upcoming Beauty & the Beast live-action remake takes charge of an intriguing film that ends up having a whiff of Saturday night drama about it.
Mr Holmes follows the story of the titular character as he comes to terms with his advancing years. McKellen plays Holmes at age 93, living away from the public eye in a quiet rural location alongside his harsh housekeeper Mrs Munro (Laura Linney) and her son Roger – a wonderful Milo Parker in his first big-screen role.
Ian McKellen is simply brilliant throughout the course of the film and after years of playing Gandalf and Magneto, slows things right down in a portrayal of the detective never really seen before – he is magnificent.
Laura Linney is a good distraction from McKellen’s rather downbeat role but her character doesn’t really do enough to register and her accent wanders through numerous countries by the time the end credits roll. This is very much McKellen’s film.
Mr Holmes, much like A Little Chaos earlier this year is a slow-paced drama that would rather tackle the finer details of the script and focus on its characters then delve into unnecessary subplots and fancy special effects and there’s something charming about this simplicity.
Unfortunately though, it all just feels a little TV drama like. Because of this, you’re almost expecting a ‘To be continued…’ credit to be added at the end of the first hour – with the conclusion coming a week later.
This is a real shame as it makes Mr Holmes feel longer than it actually is. At just over 100 minutes, this is by no means a drawn-out film but the slow pace ensures things seem to take a little longer than they perhaps would in another feature.
Thankfully though, Ian McKellen’s performance is reason enough to give Mr Holmes a watch, with another being the intriguing and at times, rather unpredictable plot.
Overall, there isn’t really that much wrong with Mr Holmes but its release date is almost suicidal. Being sandwiched in between blockbusters like Jurassic World, Minions and Terminator: Genisys, it has a tough job to do and it deserves more success than I fear it will end up having.
Ian McKellen, like Meryl Streep is one of the finest living thespians and Mr Holmes only cements his position at the very top of his craft. However, it’s probably best reserved for a night-time viewing with slippers and a hot cup of cocoa.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/06/21/sir-ian-mckellen-is-magnificent-mr-holmes-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Feb 28, 2018
Funny film with Intelligent humor
Heading into GAME NIGHT, I was trying to remember the last time I saw a good, funny film that did not rely on Gross-Out Humor or Sex & Fart jokes to mine it's laughs.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Final Fantasy VII Remake in Video Games
Jun 10, 2020 (Updated Jun 10, 2020)
Combat Is Fluid, Weighty And Satisfying. (2 more)
The Protagonists Are Well Thought Out.
I Can't Wait For The Next Part.
Side missions Are Tedious And Boring (2 more)
The Middle Is A Slog To Go Through,
Parts Of The Story Needed Removing
A Classic Reborn.
I understand the impact FFVII has had on both video game narratives, and storytelling itself. It remains a staple mark on video games, and as such is held so highly amongst developers as the standard of how great a narrative can be, and its hard to argue. I haven't even played the original 1997 release, but I know the story beats and main moments. Its an incredible journey, with fascinating characters, rolled into moments of twists and turns. Once a remake was announced, it obviously was met with massive anticipation, and worrying doubt. Could you possibly pull off a remake of classic and make fans old and new fall in love all over again?
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
The answer is a yes, but only just. I played FFVIIR as a brand new player, knowing nothing of the characters or story of what happens in Midgar, and began being completely enthralled. The opening is a chapter of fast edged combat and moral dilemmas of actions taken by our heroes. Its explosive, bursting with huge set pieces and cheesy dialogue. I loved every moment, and this was only the tutorial. The implications ride high throughout the whole experience when you see the environment change around you, and questions begin to arise from NPC’s, and yourself. Is their really any good guys amongst this world of soldiers, eco-terrorists and corrupt authority figures?
From then the game takes different directions, and things become problematic, specifically once you fade from the Avalanche crew.
Although the story still remains as engaging to a certain point, the experience takes a wayward nosedive. Side missions are introduced, and while you don't have to complete them, you feel the need to once characters start asking you to. This becomes a major issue because they are all so boring and stiff. The characters you talk to are all robotic, the dialogue seems overdramatised, and the reward itself just isn't worth it. The main aspect of buying a game for me is for immersion, and consistently I was being pulled from the experience because of lacklustre moments, and this is the same for most of the game. As I said, the opening to the story is a perfect way to begin your stay in Midgar, but once you drift away from the Avalanche crew, the story becomes stale. The game feels more like a twenty five hour experience rather than thirty five, and cutting certain sections would boost the story significantly. I understand wanting to add more and retain the great moments from the original, but sometimes cutting the fat can also be a good thing.
While moments in the original game could last around one hour, FFVIIR stretches it further to gain more insight into side characters and exploration. Don’t get wrong, it works in certain areas, for example Wall Market and Sector 7 as a whole are fantastic places to spend hours in, which I did. They burst with details that provide back story to their presence only thought about by the player. The slums are cramped, lifeless in colour, and shows the class divide within Midgar’s people.
However, in these moments they are only boosted further by the best feature of the game; Combat.
The combat is sublime, crunchy and weighty, and requires excellent skill the more you progress. Each of the protagonists has unique fighting styles, and customisation with materials gives you even more edge over your opponents. Fighting your standard monsters and creatures becomes a breeze once you know their weaknesses, but Boss fights are where the real challenge happens. Boss fights are the highlight of the entire game, especially the likes of a Giant House and the Final confrontation, and encapsulate the work and progression within the characters you play as. At first, I just wanted to play as Cloud, but knowing each characters skills, then switching between them to fight, and help other members of your party, becomes a juggling act thats so damn good. Speaking of which, our Heroes. At first, I thought I was dealing with generic anime characters who all boast the same attributes, and how wrong I was. Cloud is defensive, standoffish and blunt, who's primarily in the job for the money. Cloud is suffering, from what I can gather, with amnesia, and as the game’s questions begin to reveal the answers, he sets aside the hard edged exterior he carries with him, and opens up to warm to this band of wacky eco-terrorists. Even with this just being the first part of however many they are planning to release, Cloud is so interesting to me, a nut you want to crack and see what is inside, and his past becomes the focal point of the finale. He has become one of my favourite characters in a video game.
FFVIIR is a conundrum I only further want to figure out. Its both an incredible video game, but also bogged down with clear issues, which I personally feel either didn’t need to be in the game, or could of spent more time being fleshed out. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. Its a game I feel everyone should play, for gorgeous spectacle and mesmerising vision. I can’t wait for the second part.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Karate Kid (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It may not be “use the force”, but the phrase “wax on, wax off” has stood the test of time in popular culture and cinematic fame. Would the newest Karate Kid film do the same? Could I stomach another ghastly remake in a year that seems endlessly full of them? Well, I am happy to report that I didn’t have to.
Jaden Smith crafts an engaging portrayal of the lead character, Dre Parker, a kid trying to fit in and make friends as an African-American in China. Equally impressive was Jackie Chan as maintenance man by day, Kung Fu master by night, Mr. Han. Chan’s performance was surprisingly dramatic and, for once, did not entirely center on his undeniable martial arts appeal. Don’t get me wrong, the martial arts are in there but for Chan this film displays his tenure as a veteran of the big screen.
It seems there is only one thing that could have been better: Tarji P. Hensen who played Dre’s dopey mom, Sherry Parker. No parent could seem this self-absorbed and unaware of a situation yet maintain wholesome parental figure status, and the acting was poor to boot. Overshadowing Hensen’s lame interjections was Dre’s adorable love interest, Meiying (played by Wenwen Han). The performance of Meiying managed to captured not only Dre’s heart but also that of the entire audience while staying on the film’s well-plotted course.
“The Karate Kid” is emotionally charged and action packed, there is really no denying it. And so what if the whole thing also looks a lot like a tourist film for China, the great landscapes and classic shots only add to the imagery.
Film buffs and fans of the original Karate Kid series will enjoy the mix of subtly-placed and more blatant references to the original films. Better yet it quickly becomes clear that Jackie Chan is not trying to top the legendary performance of Pat Morita but manages to prove that the story we all got so wrapped up in 1984 is still relevant in today’s modern world.
Jaden Smith crafts an engaging portrayal of the lead character, Dre Parker, a kid trying to fit in and make friends as an African-American in China. Equally impressive was Jackie Chan as maintenance man by day, Kung Fu master by night, Mr. Han. Chan’s performance was surprisingly dramatic and, for once, did not entirely center on his undeniable martial arts appeal. Don’t get me wrong, the martial arts are in there but for Chan this film displays his tenure as a veteran of the big screen.
It seems there is only one thing that could have been better: Tarji P. Hensen who played Dre’s dopey mom, Sherry Parker. No parent could seem this self-absorbed and unaware of a situation yet maintain wholesome parental figure status, and the acting was poor to boot. Overshadowing Hensen’s lame interjections was Dre’s adorable love interest, Meiying (played by Wenwen Han). The performance of Meiying managed to captured not only Dre’s heart but also that of the entire audience while staying on the film’s well-plotted course.
“The Karate Kid” is emotionally charged and action packed, there is really no denying it. And so what if the whole thing also looks a lot like a tourist film for China, the great landscapes and classic shots only add to the imagery.
Film buffs and fans of the original Karate Kid series will enjoy the mix of subtly-placed and more blatant references to the original films. Better yet it quickly becomes clear that Jackie Chan is not trying to top the legendary performance of Pat Morita but manages to prove that the story we all got so wrapped up in 1984 is still relevant in today’s modern world.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Fly (1958) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
As the wife (Patricia Owens) of "murdered" scientist played by Al (David) Hedison, is maniacally hunting for a fly with a white head, both the police and his brother (Vincent Price) are trying to uncover the truth behind his death, which seems by all accounts to be the work of his wife.
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
But as she recounts the tale of how they both ended up embroiled in the hydraulic press, one under it and one at the controls, the plot thickens and a Sci Fi classic is born. Hedison's scientist has invented the teleporter and during one of his human tests on himself, a fly enters the chamber with him and the pair are fused: The fly's head and left arm are now a part of Hedison, whilst his head and arm are buzzing around as part of a common house fly.
The film makes an effort to offer some real science, though be it toned down and simplified by today's standards, but it is easy to feel that this is a naive movie at face value, if you forget that in 1958, teleportation was a fantastical concept, but mid 60's science fiction such as Star Trek would make this much more matter of fact and play around with science more freely.
But by the time of the remake in 1986, David Cronenberg was gifted with an audience who understood these ideas and offered a more comprehensive take on what might have happened, in this case, gene splicing and DNA replication, with the cells using the corrupted hybrid DNA code as a basic every time the cells replicate, a process which would eventually turn Jeff Goldblum's man in to a man/fly hybrid monster!
But here, whilst almost all of this is present, it is simplified for an audience unprepared and unarmed with the scientific knowledge with would be more common in the 1980's, thanks to films like this. Here, Hedison's man/fly is changing mentally into a fly the longer he has the mutation, leading him to commit assisted suicide in order to prevent his work from been replicated, fearing the consequences.
This is ground breaking stuff. A Sci-Fi classic which spends most of its running time building an intriguing, intelligent suspenseful thriller, with little time given over to the eponymous Fly itself, but it is omnipresent, chilling as is the reveal of the scientist's deformation in the final act, the change in personality and loving relationship with his tragic wife.
And that penultimate scene in which the white-headed fly is revealed to us with Hedison's head and arm as it/he is about to be devoured by a spider in his web, must be one of the most chilling scene's of the genre. Simple, effective and not for the special effects or gore, but for the concept, one which leaves you thinking and considering what you have just witnessed.
What would you do if you saw a fly with a human head? A human with a fly's head? Creepy...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Nov 1, 2020 (Updated Nov 26, 2020)
An interesting experiment, to be sure - but one which only ends up being adequate. A fragmented, weird, messy experience (which certainly isn't always bad) but compared to today's shit throwaway remakes that we see every other week now this seems much more nuanced than we gave it credit for, in retrospect. Still feels like two totally different movies - first you have the sort of scuffed backstory stuff which, yes, I agree does devalue the mystery of this character a bit but it's peppered graciously with Zombie's greasy, raunchy flavor and is the most genuinely brutal part of the film in comparison to the CliffNotes remake portion which seems a lot more confusingly sterile, frustratingly cutting away from most of the stabs and pulling out knives with no blood on them - stuff like that. Perhaps I'm spoiled by the likes of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭'𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 but like many I wish this stuck with being a Rob Zombie movie rather than just doing an express retread of the original where all the characters are grating jerkwads who hate each other. Often not a bad emulation and it's sort of interesting seeing these once formal characters now going around saying harmful expletives all the time - it's still suitably grimy after all but the new additions seem senseless while the returning characters/aspects are given nothing to do. The saving grace of this back portion is Tyler Mane's hulking behemoth Myers - just eating bullets, stabs, and blunt trauma one after the other as if someone's flicking spitballs at him while delivering effortless violence in his wake. And come on that revamped mask is so damn cool. In these moments it's clear that nobody roots for the bad guy(s) and revels in the abject misfortune of the innocent quite like Zombie - and that his movies are at their best when they focus acutely on the sort of writhes, convulsions, and pleads the human body does when it's faced with inhuman destruction by the hands of those who live by it. I still have no idea why they gave him this franchise though when his trailer park spectacle aesthetic is practically *gift-wrapped* for the 𝘛𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘢𝘸 series.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2022) in Movies
Feb 19, 2022 (Updated Feb 19, 2022)
Wasted backstories that go nowhere. (3 more)
Rehashes and recreates the original film while not offering much of its own material.
New characters fall flat.
Feels like a half-cocked attempt at a new "film. "
Tearing the Face Off of a Horror Franchise
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a direct sequel to the original 1974 film nearly 50 years later. Directed by David Blue Garcia with a screenplay by Chris Thomas Devlin and a story by Fede Alvarez (co-writer and director of the 2013 Evil Dead remake) and Rodo Sayagues (Don’t Breathe 1 & 2), Texas Chainsaw Massacre follows a group of young 20-somethings as they venture from Austin to Harlow, TX; a seven hour drive.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Dante (Jacob Latimore, Detroit) and Melody (Sarah Yarkin, Happy Death Day 2U) are business partners with somewhat of an impressive internet following. Dante is a chef who is looking to expand and Harlow is just the type of remote town to do it in. Melody’s teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Dante’s fiancé Ruth (Nell Hudson) have tagged along mostly for emotional support.
With bank investors on the way to scout the location, the young foursome discovers a dilapidated orphanage with an old woman (Alice Krige, Gretel & Hansel) still living inside along with the last of what she refers to as, “her boys.” Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen Fouéré) has been searching for Leatherface since he killed her friends all those years ago and now she can finally have the vengeful closure that she deserves.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is mostly trash. Leatherface has gotten the manure treatment outside of the original film, the 2003 remake, and maybe the 1986 sequel. The timeline is as messy and inconsistent as Halloween as whatever takes place behind the scenes between sequels, remakes, and reboots all seems to result in lackluster or sometimes atrocious outings for one of the most recognizable horror movie icons.
This new film can’t seem to decide what it wants to be. Sally is brought back for a half-hearted cameo as she does nothing but wear a cowboy hat, stare at a picture, cock a shotgun, and gut a pig. She’s meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesn’t work. Texas Chainsaw Massacre also just seems to lift aspects from the original film as well as other non-genre films without ever offering its audience anything original or actually worthwhile.
The ending is basically lifted directly from the original as is the aspect of a group of young people running into trouble on a road trip far away from home. It’s young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melody’s leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connor’s showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like it’s trying to capitalize on the success Halloween has had since it follows a similar format (making a direct sequel to the original film decades later).
On the bright side, the kills and the gore are mostly satisfying. The wrist breaking scene followed by being stabbed in the neck with the broken bone is gnarly. There’s a brutal head smashing scene with a hammer and the bus sequence is essentially horror movie fan heaven even if the setup and dialogue in said sequence is awful. The swinging door kill feels like it could have been better than it was since it covers up more than it reveals. You can either leave the brutality to the audience’s imagination or show everything in its nasty and gruesome glory; trying to do both in the same sequence just results in disappointment.
You can make the argument that you watch a film like this for the gore and not the story anyway, but that isn’t the point. When there’s this much of a wait between new entries fans deserve better. The frustrating aspect is that Fede Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues are capable of providing a worthwhile story along with the blood and guts because they gave it to us with Evil Dead. There’s nothing here worth the nine year gap between this and the last Texas Chainsaw film (Texas Chainsaw 3D) or the five year gap between this and Leatherface. When it’s not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, it’s just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isn’t as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but it’s not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s barely 80-minutes long, so it has a relatively quick pace and the kills are solid. But the story is seriously lacking as there are elements that literally go nowhere; Lila’s backstory about why she’s so quiet doesn’t add much of anything other than a reason for her to never leave a padded cell when and if a sequel to this is ever made.
The problem now is that the successful film formula revolves around nostalgia, rehashing familiar sequences and storylines, and bringing back survivors for one final confrontation. This has all proven to crush the box office, especially during the pandemic. This results in there being no originality or creativity anymore; it’s just a repetition of what we’ve already seen. Until Leatherface can get a fresh face to wear, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise is doomed to run in circles with a sputtering chainsaw on a mostly deserted road no one wants to travel down.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Curiously Terrible
Disney is set for a bumper year of takings. 2016 is dominated by the House of Mouse in all of their guises, whether Marvel, Pixar or Disney itself. We’ve already had the fantastic live-action remake of The Jungle Book and now Alice returns to Wonderland in Through the Looking Glass.
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Tim Burton took us to the murky depths of “Underland” in the 2010 predecessor; a film that was hugely overrated with a box-office return of $1billion. Naturally a sequel was greenlit soon after, but is Through the Looking Glass another case of style over substance?
Yes is the short answer. Muppets director James Bobin takes over from Burton and recreates his vision of Wonderland with visual panache, but the story is so poor, and lacking in any real connection to Lewis Carroll’s charming 1871 novel that you’ll leave the cinema sorely disappointed.
We join the film three years after the events of its predecessor as Alice, played by an unappealing Mia Wasikowska, returns from a voyage on the high seas to her home in London. After a brief catch up, she returns to a far more colourful “Underland” where Johnny Depp’s Mad Hatter yearns for his family.
In order to reunite the Hatter with his estranged loved ones, Alice must turn back the hands of time to find out their fate. Story wise, that’s pretty much it as we follow Wasikowska’s Alice from one poorly executed set piece to another with no real consequence on the final result.
Even more frustrating is the complete wastage of Through the Looking Glass’ talented cast. The majority of the series’ stars return with Anne Hathaway and Stephen Fry being underused as the White Queen and Cheshire Cat respectively. Sacha Baron Cohen plays another one of his caricatures in the vaguely written villain, Time – I say vaguely written because his motives for stopping Alice in her quest are unclear to say the least.
Helena Bonham Carter and her massive head also make a comeback as does Matt Lucas’ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickman’s passing as ticket bait. Rickman’s iconic voice was a highlight in Alice in Wonderland, with him taking a central role as narrator in the trailers for this sequel. My worst fear was confirmed however – his character is only in the finished product for five minutes.
Elsewhere, the special effects are decent and Bobin brings a brighter colour palette to the table than Burton did with his bleak, murky wasteland. Scriptwriter Linda Woolverton injects a dash of humour here and there but it’s not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the film’s succinct length.
Through the Looking Glass should have been a recipe for success. A promising director, huge budget, amazing source material and a talented cast all bode well for any film which makes the finished product even more appalling. Good special effects can sometimes successfully mask a wafer-thin story but creating such a poor plot out of Lewis Carroll’s novel is unforgivable.
Please don’t return us to “Underland” any time soon, I haven’t got the stomach for it, and Disney, if you’re listening, don’t let The BFG end up like this.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/04/curiously-terrible-through-the-looking-glass-review/
Terry Crews recommended The Thing (1982) in Movies (curated)
Leigh J (71 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Nov 14, 2019
Dead on Arrival
Doctor and Family man Louis and his wife Rachel decide to move to Maine with their 2 kids Ellie and Gage, so that Louis can work at a University Hospital and Rachel can have more time with the kids. Whilst running around the large property, Ellie literally stumbles into a large wall of trees, which she unsuccessfully tries to climb and thus meets Judd, an elderly neighbour who tends to her injury and advises her not to play around the area. When Judd meets Louis, he advises that the Pet Sematary near their property where Ellie was playing is actually their land also. However when the family Cat, Church, is fatally injured; Judd shows Louis what is behind the wall of Trees, and advises him to bury Church there. The next morning, Church is miraculously back... and he's acting vicious and erratic. Is Church really the family cat? Or has something else altogether possessed Church? And when tragedy befalls this family yet again, what lengths will Louis go to to keep his family?
I've read the Pet Sematary Book (by Stephen King) and it's an absolute page turner so I was really excited to see this Remake. However, the whole thing fell flat for me. It wasn't remotely scary or interesting, even. It was just bland and made you feel a bit "meh" about the whole thing. Such a shame as the Book is excellent.
I've read the Pet Sematary Book (by Stephen King) and it's an absolute page turner so I was really excited to see this Remake. However, the whole thing fell flat for me. It wasn't remotely scary or interesting, even. It was just bland and made you feel a bit "meh" about the whole thing. Such a shame as the Book is excellent.