Search
Search results
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 ππ©π¦ ππ¦π·πͺπ'π΄ ππ¦π«π¦π€π΅π΄ 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 ππ¦πΉπ’π΄ ππ©π’πͺπ―π΄π’πΈ series.
RΙX 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...
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 (Donβt 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. Melodyβs teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Danteβs fiancΓ© 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, βher boys.β Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen FouΓ©rΓ©) 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 canβt 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. Sheβs meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesnβt 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. Itβs young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melodyβs leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connorβs showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like itβs 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. Thereβs 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 audienceβs 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 isnβt the point. When thereβs 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. Thereβs 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 itβs not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, itβs just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isnβt as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but itβs not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Itβs 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; Lilaβs backstory about why sheβs so quiet doesnβt 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; itβs just a repetition of what weβve 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. Melodyβs teenage sister Lila (Elsie Fisher, Eighth Grade) and Danteβs fiancΓ© 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, βher boys.β Dante and his friends awaken the mostly dormant monster known as Leatherface. Sally Hardesty (Olwen FouΓ©rΓ©) 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 canβt 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. Sheβs meant to be the connection between this film and the original and it just doesnβt 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. Itβs young, city outsiders versus born-and-bred country veterans. The film also has a weird amount of homage to Terminator 2 (Melodyβs leg wound and the shotgun blasts to Leatherface by the water being similar to Sarah Connorβs showdown with the T-1000 near the end of T2). It also feels like itβs 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. Thereβs 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 audienceβs 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 isnβt the point. When thereβs 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. Thereβs 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 itβs not recycling gags from the original film or borrowing from other franchises, itβs just young people being dumb for the sake of a cheap scare or kill.
Texas Chainsaw Massacre isnβt as unwatchable as some reviews are making it out to be, but itβs not a good film by any stretch of the imagination. Itβs 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; Lilaβs backstory about why sheβs so quiet doesnβt 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; itβs just a repetition of what weβve 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. Weβve 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 βUnderlandβ 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 Carrollβs charming 1871 novel that youβll 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 βUnderlandβ where Johnny Deppβs 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, thatβs pretty much it as we follow Wasikowskaβs 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 Glassβ talented cast. The majority of the seriesβ 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 β 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 Lucasβ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickmanβs passing as ticket bait. Rickmanβs 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 β 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 itβs not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the filmβs 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 Carrollβs novel is unforgivable.
Please donβt return us to βUnderlandβ any time soon, I havenβt got the stomach for it, and Disney, if youβre listening, donβt 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 βUnderlandβ 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 Carrollβs charming 1871 novel that youβll 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 βUnderlandβ where Johnny Deppβs 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, thatβs pretty much it as we follow Wasikowskaβs 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 Glassβ talented cast. The majority of the seriesβ 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 β 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 Lucasβ hideous incarnation of Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
However, the worst part is the use of Alan Rickmanβs passing as ticket bait. Rickmanβs 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 β 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 itβs not enough to save a bland and indifferent script that plods along despite the filmβs 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 Carrollβs novel is unforgivable.
Please donβt return us to βUnderlandβ any time soon, I havenβt got the stomach for it, and Disney, if youβre listening, donβt 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.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Pet peeve
#petsematary is a dire #remake of an already bad #film. Its drab, lifeless & should never of been #reanimated. I had high hopes for this film because it feels like its been a while since the last mainstream horror movie so as I felt genuinely excited but after the first 15 minutes this feeling had quickly been replaced with sheer #fear there was still well over an hour left to go till i could leave. Before we hit the negatives ill give you my positives that saved the movie from being a total walk out. First - #johnlithgow is great as always but mostly wasted largely because of the terrible script he's been given to work with. Second - the running theme of #death is great & the film portrays how all living things fear it so much rather well (it also handles #grieving & guilt #trauma surrounding #death well too but its ultimately far to brief). Now the bad - the movie feels nasty & cheap to look at visually, cgi is bad, make up design is lazy, the camerawork feels awkward & strangely zoomed in just a bit to close to everything, theres weird #90s era motion blur on everything fast moving, acting is laughable/cheesy & scenes go on far to long as does build up to key scenes that have an anticlimactic pay off. If you've seen the original or the trailer for that matter the film becomes highly predictable killing all suspense & what little atmosphere the film conjures up is ruined by naff & bland set design. I honestly cant recomend anyone wasting their time on this highly forgettable film unless your a big fan of really #adorable #cats then this one in this is a clear 10/10 on the #cute scale. An uninspired lazy cash grab & there are a million horror films out there that tell almost the same story way better. #odeon #odeonlimitless #horror #gore #stephenking #scary #cat #animal #pet #classic #retro #cultclassic #80s #filmbuff #filmcritic #zombie
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
May 13, 2019
Cold as ice
#coldpursuit tries to hit like an avalanche but ends up being disappointing & forgettable like #snowflakes falling on to wet ground. Cold Pursuit is a remake of the #Norwegian film #inorderofdisappearance which received extremely good reviews across the board begging the question why did it need to be remade? & the straight answer to that is no it didn't. #liamnesson plays #NelsCoxman he's quite an interesting character being the town s #hero forced to seek revenge for the death of his son, problem is Nesson plays him just has he does any character now days making him not only #boring but unlikable & its hard to sympathise with him at all. Overall the film is a huge rip off of the far superior #WindRiver & also #Fargo trying its very hardest to be a #coenbrothers movie but failing at everything especially the #humour. Tone wise its a mess with #Nesson taking everything far to seriously while the film tries its hardest to be quirky & #funny. Humour that would work well in a Norwegian movie simply fails here & at times stops the movie dead or ruins the flow/serious tension its created. #tombateman is probably the best character here but even he feels like his character is an audition for the next #Joker in a #DC #batman movie. Essentially one big statement on #racism, the fight over territory & how the benefits of having & decent upbringing shapes our future Cold Pursuit has a decent message in there somewhere its just poorly handled. I did however like the score & there are sprinklings of nice production & visuals too which helped to hold my attention. All in all Cold Pursuit is simply just 'FINE' nothing more nothing less but when there are better films out there aka Wind River, Fargo or even the original fine just doesn't really cut it. #odeon #odeonlimitless #filmbuff #filmcritic #racist #winter #cold #revenge #weekend #weekendvibes #nordicnoir
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the publicβs desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancockβs image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by βX-Filesβ alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves βHancockβ grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancockβs image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by βX-Filesβ alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves βHancockβ grounded.
Troublemakers: How a Generation of Silicon Valley Upstarts Invented the Future
Book
THE GRIPPING TALE OF THE EARLY FRONTIER DAYS OF SILICON VALLEY FROM ACCLAIMED HISTORIAN LESLIE...