Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Michael Myers has returned, again! But this time it’s personal. Halloween II is the brainchild of Rob Zombie who directed the remake of the 1978 John Carpenter original.
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
However, in this, the first sequel of the rebooted slasher series, Zombie has been able to splash his creative wisdom all over the celluloid with somewhat successful results. Unfortunately, in some parts, the phrase somewhat successful seems even more appropriate.
By now, we all know that having Sheri Moon in a Rob Zombie film is a given, but her role here is perhaps slightly too implausible for even the most hardened fans to appreciate, playing what seems like a schizophrenic Michael’s dead mother. Unfortunately, the idea, whilst being excellent at the pre-production stages of the movie, is badly executed on screen and what we’re left with, is a mess of a storyline that doesn’t ever know which way it is going; supernatural thriller one-minute and slasher flick the next.
Regrettably, Zombie has made some horrific choices concerning Michael’s character. Of course we have to give him credit for taking on a Halloween sequel without any prior experience. The inexperience shows in Michael, who has been turned into a Jason Voorhees rip off; grunting as he kills and not using the typical kitchen knife as the primary weapon. Here, Zombie also decides to remove Michael’s iconic mask, which should in theory become an iconic cinema moment; unfortunately it does not and is forgotten in a mass of blood and gore.
Negativity aside, the story is pretty much the same as last time around, though Zombie has focused in on Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) and the way her character changes from the events of Halloween night. As with giving the characters a back-story in the 2007 Halloween, this storyline change really does work and gives the film something which isn’t usually necessary for the horror genre; depth.
The acting is surprisingly superb; Compton is much better this time around and really brings a whole new grungy side to her character and most of the other returning characters are given much more room to grown and develop, probably due to the film’s long running time. On the other hand, Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of the iconic Sam Loomis has been shoddily remastered into a greedy, fame-obsessed man whose objectives are simply to make as much money as possible. This doesn’t suit the role and leaves the usually excellent McDowell wanting.
Overall, Halloween II is a decent stab at recreating the old franchise; Zombie has made it work on so many levels and it certainly moves the game on. Unfortunately, he has tried to pack too many elements into the film and the pay off for that is a messy looking cinema encounter. Enjoyable as a film, yes, but the jury is still out on whether this deserves a spot on the Halloween collector’s shelf.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/19/halloween-ii-2009/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Thing (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After the success of a videogame based on the original film, rumors of a sequel arose many times but never came to fruition, with creative differences between Universal and John Carpenter cited as the main reason. It was oft-speculated that Carpenter made a deal to write and produce a sequel provided he got to name has director. But when he opted to name himself director the studio balked and the project fell apart. In the aftermath, rumors of a miniseries on the SyfY channel arose along with the possibility of retelling the story with 20-somethings on a tropical island but (thankfully) they never saw the light of day.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
Rather than do a sequel or remake, Universal opted to jump start the franchise with a prequel that covers the events leading up to the John Carpenter film. It is set in 1982 at a Norwegian research station in Antarctica shortly before the scientists make an amazing discovery. When they uncover an alien craft that had been buried in the ice for over 100,000 years, as well as a frozen crewmember from the craft, they quickly celebrate the scientific discovery of a lifetime.
Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is recruited by a famed scientist to travel to the desolate continent to research the find. Told only that they are about to research an amazing discovery, Kate and a team of specialists arrive and are absolutely stunned by the magnitude of their discovery. Kate urges caution but is overridden by the expedition leader Dr. Halvorsan (Ulrich Thomsen), who insists on taking a tissue sample of the frozen creature encassed in a block of ice.
Later that evening while celebrating, the very much alive creature escapes from its icy prison and begins to systematically hunt the members of the research team. The creature is eventually trapped and burned which causes some consternation over the loss of the creature for further scientific study, but many in the camp applaud its loss after seeing firsthand the destruction it is capable of.
After a bizarre series of events, Kate makes the startling discovery that the cells of the creature are able to imitate and perfectly replicate any thing that it comes in contact with. As a result, not only is the creature very much alive, but the individuals in the camp may no longer be human. Trapped in a remote location with an advancing winter storm, suspicions and paranoia go through the roof as the survivors are pitted against one another, unsure of who is still human. What follows is a high-octane adventure awash in action and grisly special-effects as the two species are locked in the ultimate battle for survival.
The film has a good supporting cast and Joel Edgerton does solid supporting work as an American helicopter pilot assigned to the camp. Eric Christian Olsen provides a steadying presence as a research assistant but his character is not as developed as it could be. It is known that he and Kate know each other but their past history is undefined which makes their relationship a bit puzzling in the film especially when the survivors begin to pick sides.
While the movie is not going to make fans forget the original, it is a very worthy companion piece. As the film was winding down I found myself checking off a couple of inconsistencies with the original film, but was very pleasantly surprised when this was all explained during the end credits which perfectly synced the end of this film with the opening of John Carpenter’s classic.
In many ways the weakness of film is due to the success of John Carpenter’s previous film, in that the creature is not that much of a mystery this time around. Part of the suspense of the previous film was not knowing how the creature operated nor how it was capable of infecting and replicating numerous individuals.
This time around the suspense is lost due to the familiarity with the creature. As a result, director Matthijs van Heijningen focused his efforts on a more action adventure oriented film that gave very little time for character development. We are not told very much about many of the characters in the film as they simply exist to serve as potential victims for the creature. All one really needs to know is they are scientists or support staff as aside from a handful of characters we’re not really given much reason to care whether they survive.
Visually the film is sharp and it is clear that a lot of attention was paid to replicate the look of the previous film. The shots of vast fields of ice and snow emphasized the remote and isolated setting that the characters find themselves in and served as a reminder that danger lurks all around. The special-effects have obviously been upgraded since 1982 and it was nice to see that the creative elements did not go overboard on CGI effects, and actually used puppetry and animatronics to provide updated creature effects that were still in keeping with the look and tone from the previous film.
While the film is not likely to reach the iconic status of the previous film, it is still a worthy companion piece that has enough action and effects to keep it interesting to fans of the series – just so long as they keep their expectations reasonable and do not expect a film on par with the previous one.
JT (287 KP) rated Godzilla (2014) in Movies
Mar 23, 2020
Does what it says on the tin
Big action blockbusters probably don’t get much bigger than this, certainly, the budgets don’t. Just ask Gareth Edwards, who is making his second feature (again about monsters) brings to life one of the films most iconic.
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Edwards as a director landed on peoples radar with his 2010 micro-budgeted Monsters which drew on strong character development and their ongoing relationships in the aftermath of an alien invasion. In this reboot, which if there was ever a need for a remake this might well have been it, Edwards plumps for well crafted central characters while teasing us with glimpses of prehistoric beings saving the money shots for the big action set pieces.
In an opening credits history lesson which gives us a background into the creation of the gargantuan predator, and the reason for all that nuclear testing, we are fast-forwarded to 1999 was the discovery of giant remains sparks fears that something else has been awoken and ready to cause some havoc.
I wasn’t particularly blown away by this one, the first half is exceptional as Cranston’s Joe Brody is encapsulated in a collapsing nuclear power plant disaster and then goes a bit crackpot as he looks to unearth his theory that the government are trying to cover something up.
Once the dust settles on that and the force of nature have revealed themselves in the shape of Godzilla and his foe the M.U.TO.s (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Objects) there is little to do but sit back and watch the carnage unfurl.
With so much going on the character performances are practically dwarfed by the 350 ft beasts going toe to toe, and you really pay little attention to what is going on in the background. Some of the cast add little if anything which is a shame, Ken Watanabe does a lot of starring into space with his jaw-dropping onto the floor. His partner in science Sally Hawkins merely attempts to add snippets of useless information and poor Elizabeth Olsen is reduced to a bit part love interest.
Taylor-Johnson looks suitably beefed up and manages to hold his own, taking centre stage to save the world from possible annihilation, as if that hasn’t already been achieved by the Dawrinesque nuclear creation. There are parts within the film that are ludicrous, and parts that you can stare in amazement at none more so than the final fight which if anything is certainly worth the admission price.
Visually as you would expect it’s a stunning film but is somewhat disjointed throughout. There were enough subtle references to suggest a sequel (which there was) and that Gareth Edwards will in someway get another crack and wreaking havoc somewhere else (which he didn’t).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Fun With Dick and Jane (2005) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Fun with Dick and Jane starts as we meet Dick (Carrey) who is about to get a promotion to vice president of the company he has worked for, for year. The problem comes that this promotion is designed to put the blame on the company’s problems on him instead of the men who really are involved, Jack (Baldwin) and Frank (Jenkins).
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
Dick loses his job and his wife Jane (Leoni) has quit her job, the two struggle to find new jobs and before long they are facing being evicted, which turns them to a life of crime to save their home.
Thoughts on Fun with Dick and Jane
Characters – Dick has been working for a company for his whole working career, he has been waiting for a chance to get to the next step which he gets only to see himself become the fall guy, making him unemployable in the field. He can’t get a job anywhere and out of pure desperation he turns to a life a crime to support his family. Jane is the wife of Dick who quits her job with his new promotion and can’t get a new job, she believes in Dick and ends up teaming up with Dick to commit crime. Jack and Frank are the CEOs that have taken advantage of Dick to get away clean after their illegal trading.
Performances – Jim Carrey gets to play into the full energy comedy that he is known for here, this isn’t the best he has given, but his fans will enjoy what he does, Tea Leoni does struggle with comedy and it is clear to see because she just doesn’t work with Carrey’s comedy. Alec Baldwin and Richard Jenkins get to enjoy their roles in the film playing into what they could be for these real people.
Story – The story follows a couple that are forced into a life of crime after losing everything when a business they are employed with gets closed down with the CEOs leaving the employees broke. This is a remake which has been bought into the modern era of greedy businessman who have taken advantage of their employees only to be left nothing. The story does seem to be going in fast forward with the crime montage flashing over what is happening. This does have a good outcome for everyone involved, but just doesn’t engage for the audience.
Comedy/Crime – The comedy in the film mostly revolves around Jim Carrey bringing in his routine which is enjoyed by people who are fans of his work, the crime side of the film shows just how CEOs can try and get away with things and how one couple looks to crime to survive.
Settings – The film doesn’t give us any settings which feel overly iconic which the film could have had to make us become more invested in what is happening.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Crime montage.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime comedy that skips over too much of the interesting material only to leave us feeling like we blinked and missed too much.
Overall: Basic crime comedy.
Chloe (778 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Nov 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 7, 2020)
Millie Bobby Brown (1 more)
Henry Cavill
Lacking mystery (5 more)
Lacking plot
Too much done badly
Disappointing
Boring
4th Wall
Disappointing
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is the first time that I have felt disappointed about a Holmes universe remake. Usually they are done well out of respect for Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The plot could have been so much better, it seemed to get lost within itself.
There were some good ideas and potentials for much better plot e.g. the suffragettes rising and the bombing plot but this was only touched on. The only reason we kept watching was to see if the mother was going to be involved with a bombing plot. The feminist aspect was then reversed when she went chasing after a boy, although with a political meaning this was still heavily focused on their relationship.
All the clues were spoon fed to you and had no real significance. There was no audience immersion like other Holmes movies. I don't know if that was what the 4th wall stuff was supposed to do, this did not work for me and soon became boring as it added very little.
This could have been half an hour shorter and achieved the same story.
Considering this seemed to be aimed at teens, some of the fight scenes were brutal especially where Enola is nearly drowned!
The only redeeming features are the cast list. Bobby Brown was endearing and is an excellent young actress. With more Henry Cavill in it this may have improved the whole story.
There were some good ideas and potentials for much better plot e.g. the suffragettes rising and the bombing plot but this was only touched on. The only reason we kept watching was to see if the mother was going to be involved with a bombing plot. The feminist aspect was then reversed when she went chasing after a boy, although with a political meaning this was still heavily focused on their relationship.
All the clues were spoon fed to you and had no real significance. There was no audience immersion like other Holmes movies. I don't know if that was what the 4th wall stuff was supposed to do, this did not work for me and soon became boring as it added very little.
This could have been half an hour shorter and achieved the same story.
Considering this seemed to be aimed at teens, some of the fight scenes were brutal especially where Enola is nearly drowned!
The only redeeming features are the cast list. Bobby Brown was endearing and is an excellent young actress. With more Henry Cavill in it this may have improved the whole story.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Is the MCU all out of surprises?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become one of the most successful movie franchises ever made, and it’s easy to see why. Featuring incredible actors, up-and-coming directors and that trademark sense of humour, each film in the MCU has something to offer.
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Kindergarten Teacher (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The Kindergarten Teacher was an experience, a proper "oh no, don't do that" awkward experience. Evidently it is a remake of the 2014 film Haganenet/The Kindergarten Teacher, written and directed by Nadav Lapid. Recently I've been watching the original versions to see the comparison between the two but I honestly don't think I can do it with this.
The story follows Lisa as she tries to nurture her own talent and that of her two children. But she's a disconnected mother and she doesn't seem to realise that they're doing okay on their own and it's just her life that hasn't lived up to expectations.
I'm intrigued to know the story behind how this originally came into being. It seems like a very specific subject, although I can't find anything about it being a true story in a brief search on the interweb.
Gyllenhaal has a tough role, it goes against every instinct you have as a decent human being. Lisa is an intriguing character, while she has her own interests at heart and the desire to make herself a success she's also desperate to give Jimmy the success he deserves too. It's quite surprising how she willingly unmasks herself in his favour at one point, but I think that's also the point where she realises she's crossed so far over the line that she's no hope of recovering from it. There's a desperation around her, she needs to be something more than she is and that urgency makes her forget what's appropriate and right.
This is scary in a way I can't really identify, possibly because it singles out a predator I'd never considered before? While the relationship is never particularly physically inappropriate her treatment of Jimmy does swing wildly between looking after him as a motherly figure to calling him like they're in a relationship.
I can't say that I enjoyed the film, I also didn't particularly hate it. The topic was so distracting that I couldn't really focus on all of the aspects of the film while I watched it. I think it was more that I was reacting so much to the story that there was actually no place for enjoyment. It really annoyed me that not a single person actioned any of their suspicions, there were at least two opportunities for intervention and yet, nothing.
The ending was a redemption of sorts and the way it was handled was quite unexpected, I'm not sure that it really made up for anything that came before it but it was well received.
Sadly I can't think of anything more constructive to say about this, it genuinely makes me scrunch up my face while I think about it.
What you should do
There's nothing particularly outstanding in The Kindergarten Teacher for me to recommend it, I don't even think I would watch it when it comes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't really want anything from this movie, I would however like 2 hours of pleasant feelings to put in place of everything I felt while watching this.
The story follows Lisa as she tries to nurture her own talent and that of her two children. But she's a disconnected mother and she doesn't seem to realise that they're doing okay on their own and it's just her life that hasn't lived up to expectations.
I'm intrigued to know the story behind how this originally came into being. It seems like a very specific subject, although I can't find anything about it being a true story in a brief search on the interweb.
Gyllenhaal has a tough role, it goes against every instinct you have as a decent human being. Lisa is an intriguing character, while she has her own interests at heart and the desire to make herself a success she's also desperate to give Jimmy the success he deserves too. It's quite surprising how she willingly unmasks herself in his favour at one point, but I think that's also the point where she realises she's crossed so far over the line that she's no hope of recovering from it. There's a desperation around her, she needs to be something more than she is and that urgency makes her forget what's appropriate and right.
This is scary in a way I can't really identify, possibly because it singles out a predator I'd never considered before? While the relationship is never particularly physically inappropriate her treatment of Jimmy does swing wildly between looking after him as a motherly figure to calling him like they're in a relationship.
I can't say that I enjoyed the film, I also didn't particularly hate it. The topic was so distracting that I couldn't really focus on all of the aspects of the film while I watched it. I think it was more that I was reacting so much to the story that there was actually no place for enjoyment. It really annoyed me that not a single person actioned any of their suspicions, there were at least two opportunities for intervention and yet, nothing.
The ending was a redemption of sorts and the way it was handled was quite unexpected, I'm not sure that it really made up for anything that came before it but it was well received.
Sadly I can't think of anything more constructive to say about this, it genuinely makes me scrunch up my face while I think about it.
What you should do
There's nothing particularly outstanding in The Kindergarten Teacher for me to recommend it, I don't even think I would watch it when it comes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I don't really want anything from this movie, I would however like 2 hours of pleasant feelings to put in place of everything I felt while watching this.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A haunting look at fame, love and addiction
As a fan of both Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper, I was intrigued when a new remake of A Star Is Born was announced. Despite not having seen either of its predecessors, I vaguely knew what the story was about and was interested by the chosen pairing, especially since this is Cooper’s directorial debut. I went into this film with an open heart and mind.
Whilst I rate both of their performances highly, it was Gaga who really stood out to me. Despite the fact she’s a very famous, very well-respected artist in real life, when I watched the film, I saw her character, Ally, and not Lady Gaga. She truly brought Ally to life on-screen, showing us the highs and lows of a former ‘average girl’ turned superstar. She was absolutely fantastic. I could really feel everything Ally was feeling, from elation to pain. I adored her performance and it kept me hooked throughout. Unsurprisingly, her vocals were stunning too, and listening to her performances on the big screen was a real treat. She is so utterly talented and has proven she can go far beyond her singing career, and into new territories.
A Star Is Born features some great cameos too; mainly RuPaul’s Drag Race stars Willam Belli and Shangela. It was really cool to see them in a feature film, and I loved what they brought to the story. Their relationship with Ally, especially, was really lovely and highlights the inclusivity most of us strive to achieve in modern society. Their characters meant a lot to me.
In terms of Cooper’s portrayal of Jackson, he was also very convincing as an aging star battling addiction. What I loved most about his character was the sheer complexity of it, and how you didn’t know whether to feel sorry for him or berate him. The opinion of Jackson is left entirely up to the viewer, and I really respected that about the film. It has opened a lot of debates about his character’s behaviour, and it’s wonderful when a film causes audiences to do that. He is clearly very troubled but that doesn’t always excuse some of his appalling behaviour, which is presented to us in a very raw and honest way. Because of this, the film is not an easy watch, but I believe it’s an important one all the same. It was also wonderful to hear him sing, as he has a stunning voice that complements Gaga’s throughout. Together, they’ve really made something special. I’ve been listening to the soundtrack a lot since seeing the film.
I also loved the contrast in visual style throughout A Star Is Born. The choice of set design, lighting and colours perfectly reflect what the characters are feeling in that moment in time. We go from glamorous performances on stage, to grittier, intense territories. I was certainly impressed by Cooper’s first film and look forward to seeing where his journey towards directing will take him next. He’s put so much work into this and it really has paid off, giving us an emotional, heartfelt and honest story. If you’re wondering if I cried at any point, the answer is yes. That final song though…
A Star Is Born gives us an honest look into the darker side of fame, the highs and lows, what goes on behind the scenes, all of it. Whilst most of us aren’t ignorant about the fact these issues go on, this film really presents them to us in a brilliant way. The songs themselves are a huge part of this, telling their own stories and adding to the characters’ mindset. The lyrics are fantastic, and bring so much to the film. Listen closely and it’ll be easy to see why. I would definitely recommend it even if you’re not usually a lover of musical film, based on the story alone. It’s a rollercoaster of emotions from start to finish.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/a-haunting-look-at-fame-love-and-addiction-my-thoughts-on-a-star-is-born/
Whilst I rate both of their performances highly, it was Gaga who really stood out to me. Despite the fact she’s a very famous, very well-respected artist in real life, when I watched the film, I saw her character, Ally, and not Lady Gaga. She truly brought Ally to life on-screen, showing us the highs and lows of a former ‘average girl’ turned superstar. She was absolutely fantastic. I could really feel everything Ally was feeling, from elation to pain. I adored her performance and it kept me hooked throughout. Unsurprisingly, her vocals were stunning too, and listening to her performances on the big screen was a real treat. She is so utterly talented and has proven she can go far beyond her singing career, and into new territories.
A Star Is Born features some great cameos too; mainly RuPaul’s Drag Race stars Willam Belli and Shangela. It was really cool to see them in a feature film, and I loved what they brought to the story. Their relationship with Ally, especially, was really lovely and highlights the inclusivity most of us strive to achieve in modern society. Their characters meant a lot to me.
In terms of Cooper’s portrayal of Jackson, he was also very convincing as an aging star battling addiction. What I loved most about his character was the sheer complexity of it, and how you didn’t know whether to feel sorry for him or berate him. The opinion of Jackson is left entirely up to the viewer, and I really respected that about the film. It has opened a lot of debates about his character’s behaviour, and it’s wonderful when a film causes audiences to do that. He is clearly very troubled but that doesn’t always excuse some of his appalling behaviour, which is presented to us in a very raw and honest way. Because of this, the film is not an easy watch, but I believe it’s an important one all the same. It was also wonderful to hear him sing, as he has a stunning voice that complements Gaga’s throughout. Together, they’ve really made something special. I’ve been listening to the soundtrack a lot since seeing the film.
I also loved the contrast in visual style throughout A Star Is Born. The choice of set design, lighting and colours perfectly reflect what the characters are feeling in that moment in time. We go from glamorous performances on stage, to grittier, intense territories. I was certainly impressed by Cooper’s first film and look forward to seeing where his journey towards directing will take him next. He’s put so much work into this and it really has paid off, giving us an emotional, heartfelt and honest story. If you’re wondering if I cried at any point, the answer is yes. That final song though…
A Star Is Born gives us an honest look into the darker side of fame, the highs and lows, what goes on behind the scenes, all of it. Whilst most of us aren’t ignorant about the fact these issues go on, this film really presents them to us in a brilliant way. The songs themselves are a huge part of this, telling their own stories and adding to the characters’ mindset. The lyrics are fantastic, and bring so much to the film. Listen closely and it’ll be easy to see why. I would definitely recommend it even if you’re not usually a lover of musical film, based on the story alone. It’s a rollercoaster of emotions from start to finish.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/10/14/a-haunting-look-at-fame-love-and-addiction-my-thoughts-on-a-star-is-born/
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Drag Me to Hell (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Christine Brown seems to have everything going well for her at this point in her life. She has a boyfriend who cares about her and loves her unconditionally, a great job at the bank as a loan officer with more than enough room for advancement in the company, and speaking of, it's between her and one other employee for the vacant assistant manager position. One day though, a strange looking gypsy shows up at Christine's bank asking for another extension before they foreclose on her home. After talking it over with her boss, it's up to Christine to decide on approving the loan and she comes to the conclusion of denying it. Mrs. Ganush begs and pleads with Christine, but Christine won't budge on her decision. After feeling like Christine wronged her by denying her pleas, Mrs. Ganush puts a curse on her and unless Christine can find some sort of loophole, she'll be going to hell in three days.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.
This is Sam Raimi's return to the horror genre, in case you hadn't heard that in the trailer or anything else promoting the film. Drag Me To Hell has already had such an overwhelmingly positive response when it comes to feedback and the truth of the matter is that the film is genuinely that entertaining. Not only did Sam Raimi return to the horror genre, but he did it so flawlessly and without missing a beat. He's on top of his game and, dare I say, the best he's ever been. The film only seemed to get better as it progressed. It's somehow capable of combining comedy, suspense, romance, and horror all into one amazing final product. A film that can do something like make you laugh out loud one minute, scare you the next, gross you out after that, and tear at your heartstrings is something special. And it's not like the film does that one time and calls it quits. It goes through that cycle (laugh, scare, gross, heartwarming) over and over again throughout the film. Sam Raimi has struck cinematic gold.
Drag Me To Hell is a hell of a lot of fun. It truly has something to offer anyone looking for a good time at the movies. Not only is the film based on an original story, but it's an original story that is worth being told, worth listening to, and incredibly entertaining. Originality seems to be extinct when it comes to horror these days. It's just so refreshing to see a film that not only isn't a remake, but drenches itself in the fact that it offers something new. Sam Raimi has delivered a cinematic feature that has rejuvenated what we once referred to as "the horror film." Let's hope that other filmmakers can tread the same path that he has paved the way with.