Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
You say zombie and I'm sold. No matter how serious they are they're still pretty funny, usually unintentionally. I'm not sure what it says about me when I laugh at someone fighting a zombie to the death/re-death but I can't help it... it's too daft not to!
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
I thought the trailer for Overlord was very good. Specifically the point where Boyce looks into that hole in the wall. We all knew there was something freaky in there and yet they didn't try and scare us with it. It certainly left me intrigued, but my main hope for this was that it would be better than Red-Con 1.
I enjoyed the retro feel opening sequence with the voice over. It really did go a long way to making the time period of the movie come across. But my joy was short lived because of the sheer volume of what came next. I could feel it in my stomach. Technically it was quite effective as I imagine it resembles the feeling of being in the plane quite well, but my god did it make me feel queasy. What then developed in this scene was incredibly difficult to watch, again, on point for what was happening but not ideal for the viewer. Almost everything happening on screen was rendered obsolete by the chaos.
This is then followed by a mid-air sequence that basically feels like audience participation. Boyce is in freefall. It's strange and fake... yes, I know it IS fake, but I've seen enough films do that sort of airborn story line to know it can produce great results.
Despite those issues his eventual arrival on solid ground rounds out the beginning of the film nicely.
Overlord does show one of my favourite movie character faux pas. Never have dreams. Bad things will happen to you. If you're in a life threatening situation give up on every hope you have for your future and just focus on making it through the next 2 hours of your life.
The supernatural side of the film presents you with two very different types of zombies. Chloe's aunt is a classic wheezing zombie, mooching around just being a little creepy, and the ones we encounter in the bunker are much more rage filled. Being that they are mostly born of experiments it makes me wonder if calling this a zombie movie is entirely accurate.
There is what I would call a classic take from a B-movie hidden within the German bunker. Part of me hopes that somewhere within the magic of movie timelines that this is actually the pre-cursor to Fiend Without A Face. But to be making any suggestions that this itself is a B-movie would be entirely misplaced.
The effects are generally well done. We see a transformation brought about by the German's serum which is the first time the characters have witnessed it. The only thing that let the scene down for me was the change of the character's actual character. That felt more unnatural than what happened to them.
Where there's good, there's also bad. The effect's are tainted by Two-Face. He makes a very creepy inclusion but because of the extent of the damage it looks a tad ridiculous in the action sequences. There were ways around it, they could have given him a different injury or a mask, but the latter would have possibly taken you into Captain America and Wonder Woman territory.
One thing I seriously think about this film is that they should make a second one. Not a sequel. Make this a second film. Keep Overlord as it is but also make a war film. Everything up until the creepy bits was a really solid start. It would only need a few tweaks to the bunker scenes to make them less sci-fi and the whole thing would make a great 15 certificate production.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, probably more of a lad's night out sort of thing. (I'm not trying to be sexist there, it was literally me and 14 blokes watching it.) It certainly doesn't feel like you completely wasted your time seeing it, so give it a go sometime.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
When it comes to zombies I'd much rather have Ed from Shaun Of The Dead than any of these ones, so if it's possible to get that serum concoction for super strength without the creepy side effects then I'll go for that please.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated I, Robot (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Tales of a dark and foreboding future where technology has run amuck have been cautioning viewers ever since Orwell made the phrase “Big Brother” a household expression. Other films such as ?”, “Westworld”, “Blade Runner” and “The Terminator” often show a dark and dangerous future where dependence upon technology created to serve mankind has lead to its eventual downfall.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
In the film “I Robot” Director Alex Proyas who’s past work includes “The Crow” and “Dark City” tells the tale of a near future where robots have become commonplace and are entrusted to do all manner of tasks ranging from package delivery to waiting table and caring for households. The robots are assured to be safe as they are governed by a set of behavioral restrictors that require them to obey all human commands save for those to harm another human, as robots are not allowed to harm or by inaction allow to be harmed any human.
The film stars Will Smith as Del Spooner, a Chicago Homicide detective who does not trust robots and is highly suspicious of them. The fact that in 2035 there has yet to be one documented case worldwide of a robot ever being involved in a crime is of little concern to Del as he sees the potential for danger in technology that is so widely spread.
Del is in many ways a technophobe as aside from his modern car, he has a retro lifestyle including an old fashioned alarm clock, vintage 2004 shoes, and a fondness for music from the 1970’s. An incident in Del’s past has kept him off the force for a while and has only furthered his distaste for robotics and their growing place in society.
No sooner is Del back at work than an apparent suicide at U.S. Robotics by a friend sets the film into motion. What to all seems to be an open and shut case of suicide only causes Del to become more suspicious. Del soon discovers a new model robot locked in the office of the victim, who flees from crime scene and refuses to obey the orders to halt given to him.
The fact that the robot ignores command given by a human thus violating his central laws of programming is put off as a simple malfunction by Billionaire Lawrence Robertson (Bruce Greenwood), who does not want Del’s suspicions to disrupt his business plans on the eve of the largest rollout of new robots in history. It is explained that the new NX-5 model is about to be released to the public and soon there will be one robot for every 5 humans in the world and with so much invested in this, Robertson places a gag order on Del and the entire police force to forget about the renegade robot and not say a word to anyone.
Naturally Del does not follow this command and he suspects that there is a larger and much more serious threat posed to the public even though everyone around his says that he is paranoid and desperate to find or create any evidence to support his theory that robots are not as safe as everyone believes they are.
What follows is an action packed game of cat and mouse as Del and a U.S. Robotics scientist named Susan (Bridget Moynahan), start to uncover a deeper mystery, once in which the very world they have taken for granted is about to change.
The film is a visual marvel that shows you a fairly realistic view of the future as aside from the robots and futuristic highways, the world of 2035 does not look that much different than today.
Proyas knows that Smith is his star and he does a great job allowing him to carry the picture without allowing the visual effects to dominate the film, though they are spectacular. The futuristic highways and a great chase sequence were highlights of the film and had a surprising amount of tension and drama mixed into what was a solid action sequence.
Smith plays Spooner, as a man with demons yet never ceases to become a sensitive character despite his hard edge. He is a man that is determined to follow his instincts and do what is best for the people he is sworn to protect.
The film does only play lip service to the series of novels by Asimov, but it does tell a very good cautionary tale of human’s interaction and dependence upon technology without becoming preachy or losing site of the message that society must ensure to have a balance between humanity and technology in order to thrive.
If I had to find fault, it would be that many of the supporting roles were fairly bland, as Moynahan was not given much to do aside from play a Damsel in distress and the always solid James Cromwell and Bruce Greenwood were not used nearly enough. That being said “I Robot” delivers everything you want in a summer film and more.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Thank goodness for retro screenings. I hadn't seen The Shining before but it's one of those things that gets parodied and mentioned so often that you think you might have actually seen it. Cineworld put it on so I made the time to go, there's a review coming soon... you know I'm not logical enough to have done it first!
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Dan Torrance has grown up a lot since the events at The Overlook Hotel. The Shining is still with him and his self-destructive coping mechanisms are taking a toll on him. Constantly on the move, he's running from himself as well as a cult that are hunting him around the country.
Dan finds himself in a small town where he meets Billy. Billy recognises the signs of someone trying to find themselves and takes Dan under his wing, finding him a place to stay, a job, and a way to get his life back on track.
The Shining becomes a much more productive part of his life and somehow bring him a message from Abra, a young girl with powers even stronger than his. As the cult gets closer to her he knows he has to help, but that will mean going to a place he swore he'd never go again.
Cinema is going through a very big reboot/franchise phase at the moment, this week at the cinema we were showing 8 things that are follow-ups, spin-offs or reimaginings. I don't think I can commit to saying it's a good or bad thing but it does mean I get to at least see some older films as well. With things like Doctor Sleep, Dark Fate, and Halloween last year, I became very aware that I like the nostalgic homage that these films are for their predecessors. In Doctor Sleep we've got the original locations aged up, the same scenic shots and music, and a sneaky cameo from the original Danny. With The Shining so fresh in my mind it was nice to be able to spot these things.
Ewan McGregor was a top choice for the role of Danny, he's a great actor and every moment he was on screen became very real. Dan starts his journey as a mess, an alcoholic with a severe conscience that tries to set him on the right path. You see his desperation and you get the sense he's almost lost himself. McGregor successfully portrays him from rock bottom to redemption and there's a great balance from him throughout the film.
Pitting off against our good guys is Rebecca Ferguson as Rose The Hat. Rose is the leader of the cult and she has the ability to find people who possess the Shining. She makes a pretty convincing job of the supernatural elements and has got sexy-but-sinister down to a fine art. Most of her role is fairly heavy on the evil side and that was great, but she does get one scene where she's on the other side and, like McGregor, is able to do the polar opposite state so well that it comes across entirely believable.
In support roles we have Cliff Curtis who is consistently good in everything he does (but wronged deeply by this film) and Kyliegh Curran as Abra who I thought did a magnificent job, hopefully we'll be seeing her get more roles in the not too distant future.
There weren't any characters or actors that didn't fit in, the cast overall worked really well together in that respect. There are just two choices that I had slight personal quibbles with... Snakebite Andi gets recruited to the cult after Rose finds out about her special talent, that all worked perfectly well but once she's in the character pretty much vanishes until she's needed for a plot point. That seems like a massive waste of a great thread to me. The second is the bartender, I see what they were trying to do but I honestly hated it, it felt creepily wrong.
The sets and general feel of the film are good, but there's one moment in the effects that made my eyes roll. It's a nice way to convey the power that Rose uses but it is visually terrible, had that been better this could have been a 4.5. I feel that at this point though it's traditional for a Stephen King adaptation to have something that makes me go "WTF?!"
I enjoyed the journey Doctor Sleep took the characters on, I won't be the judge of how it compares to the source material or The Shining, but if you're a new fan like me then this will hopefully come across as a great watch. There are some amazing performances on show and Curran is definitely one to watch in the future.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/doctor-sleep-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated Rent-A-Pal (2020) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
If by any chance you’re feeling nostalgic for the days of VHS videotapes, then Rent-A-Pal is here to satisfy that craving. Set in Denver during 1990, VHS video features rather heavily throughout Rent-A-Pal, from the retro font used in the opening titles to the closeups of videotapes being inserted into a VCR, the internal mechanism engaging with the tape as it prepares to play.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
The person responsible for firing up the VCR is David (Brian Landis Folkins), who is settling down to view the latest set of video profiles he’s received from dating agency Video Rendezvous, of which he is a member. David lives in the basement flat of his mum’s house, who has dementia. His father died ten years ago, meaning David is now the sole carer for his mother. And David is lonely, painfully lonely. When he calls Video Rendezvous for an update on any profile matches, he’s told that he has still not received any interest from potential partners who have viewed his profile. He is however urged to come into their office and record a new video profile, as his current one is now 6 months old.
When David sits down in front of the camera to record his new profile, he comes across well, showing just how much of a nice guy he is – a caregiver who simply wants the chance to care for a soulmate, sharing life within a loving relationship. You really do feel for him, certain that the genuine sincerity in his video will finally land him the date he so desperately needs and deserves. That is until the cameraman informs him that he has completely overrun the thirty-second limit allocated to male video profiles and that he is going to have to do it again. The shortened version David then delivers under pressure is rushed, with David now coming across as awkward and creepy, and your heart drops, knowing that he’s likely to remain single for a while longer yet. But then, as he’s having his credit card swiped by the dating agency yet again, David notices an interesting VHS sitting in the nearby bargain bin, titled Rent A Pal, and decides to buy it.
Back in his basement, David puts the Rent-A-Pal video into his VCR and presses play. He’s greeted by Andy (Will Wheaton), a cheery-looking man in a colourful knitted tank top. Andy talks of becoming best friends with David, asking him questions and leaving a pause to allow David to answer. Those pauses aren’t always long enough though, resulting in David being cut off mid-sentence, and the responses from Andy don’t always match the answers that David has given him either. But, desperate for a friend, David persists with this strange form of interaction.
We see that after repeat viewings of the tape David has managed to perfect his responses so that the conversation flows between him and Andy as if it were a real-life conversation. There are parts of the video where Andy plays cards with the viewer, takes a selfie with his back to the camera so that the viewer can be in it, and he and David are able to have the kind of deep and meaningful conversations that only two very good friends would have. It’s a rather lengthy and elaborate videotape, with certain sections earning a revisit should David ever feel the need to have a specific conversation about a certain aspect of his life. Eventually, we as the audience begin to wonder how much of this ‘relationship’ is real or imagined, with some of the questions or replies from Andy beginning to sound eerily close to being very specific and personal to David.
In his real life, David finally gets a lucky break with the dating agency, landing a date with Lisa (Amy Rutledge). Lisa also works in the care sector, and she comes across as a very nice person too. Once again you find yourself willing David to do well and thankfully, they do hit it off. But from the moment David brings Lisa down to his basement and you see that somebody is likely to sit on the VCR remote, you just know things are due to take a dark turn.
Watching David as he interacts with Andy for hours on end, day after day is surprisingly riveting. I was completely engrossed in him and his life as I waited and hoped he might catch a break. For much of the movie, I was just mesmerised by the wonderful performances from the entire cast, thoroughly enjoying the believable, likeable characters they portrayed. But, Rent-A-Pal is billed as a horror movie, so when things do eventually take a turn right at the end, we get a fast-paced, gory ending which felt somewhat disappointing, proving to be the weakest aspect of a movie which really did impress me overall.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the “ape” in “The Great Esc-ape”.
2011’s “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” was the one of the big movie surprises for me of that year. With staggeringly good mo-cap for the apes and a touching and memorable story it was (or would have been) a 5-Fad classic. 2014’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” whilst also good took a slight backward step. With “War”, the form is back almost to top notch, and this is a summer release at last deserving of the suffix “blockbuster”.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
We have moved a number of years forwards from the events of “Dawn” and society as we know it has crumbled away still further: even the “Holidays are Coming” Coke lorry is no longer in service, so things MUST be bad! We begin the film with the apes having a nice ‘Centre Parcs’ break when their reverie and cappuccinos are rudely interrupted by the attacking forces of “The Colonel” (Woody Harrelson, “Triple 9“, “Zombieland”). For The Colonel is intent on tracking down and killing ape-leader Caesar (Andy Serkis, “LOTR”).
After things get decidedly personal, Caesar leaves his young son Cornelius (in a nice nod to the Roddy McDowell role in the original films) to find and kill The Colonel. So follows a “True Grit” style pursuit/revenge chase, made more similar to this analogy by the picking up of a waif-like mute girl (the excellent Amiah Miller). I found this to be a really emotional plot line, with Caesar torn between the animal drive of his revenge and his role as a leader to his whole community.
The film analogies continue as we take in a “Shining”-style winter hotel; a gritty Prisoner-of-War camp escape drama (“The Great Esc-ape”?); a barricades battle in the style of Helm’s Deep in “LOTR: The Two Towers”; and a full-on Coppola-style helicopter-based war sequence (“Ape-ocalypse now”, as graffiti in the film declares).
Once again, the mo-cap ability to express true emotions on the faces of the apes is mind-blowing, with Serkis again being outstanding as is Steve Zahn (“Dallas Buyer’s Club“) adding some (very funny) comic relief as “Bad Ape”.
While Woody Harrelson is not everyone’s cup of tea (including mine), here I found him to be actually very good (“SO EMOTIONAL”!) as the half crazed dictator forcing beings he sees as less worthy than his kind to build a wall. (That’s just SO familiar… think dammit… think….!). There’s a really cool plot twist in The Colonel’s character arc that I really didn’t see coming. Just so cool.
Another star of the film for me was Michael Giacchino’s music which is simply awesome. Starting with a superbly retro rendition of the 20th Century Fox theme (not top of my list: “The Simpson’s Movie” still holds that spot for me!) Giacchino decorates every scene with great themes and like all great film music some of it you barely notice. A dramatic telling by the Colonel of his back-story is accompanied by sonorous music that is similar in its power to James Horner’s classic “Electronic Battlefield” in “Patriot Games”: only when the scene finishes and the music stops do you appreciate how central it was to the emotion of the scene. (As I sat through all of the end-titles for the music I can also confirm that – despite all the odds – there is no “monkey” at the end!)
The script by “Dawn” collaborators Mark Bomback and (director) Matt Reeves is eventful and packs a dramatic punch particularly in the last half of the film. The talented Mr Reeves (who also directed “Cloverfield” and “Let Me In” and is in assigned to the next Ben Affleck outing as “The Batman”) directs with panache, never letting the foot come off the tension pedal.
On the downside, that “last half of the film” is still 70 minutes away, and whilst I appreciate a leisurely pace for properly setting characters and motivations in place, getting to those simply brilliant scenes set at “the border” is a bit of a slog that might have been tightened up and moved along a bit quicker. Also, while talking about editing, I would have personally ended the film about 90 seconds before they did.
I saw this in 3D, but the effects are subtle at best (although there is a nice binocular rangefinder view). In my opinion it’s not worth going out of your way to experience in 3D.
But overall I loved this movie. The film is chock full of visual delights for film lovers (one of my favourites being “Bedtime for Bonzo” – a nice historical film reference – written on the back of a soldier’s helmet). It’s an epic action film with a strong emotional core to the story that genuinely moved me. There may be other spin-off Planet of the Apes films to follow. But if they left this here, as a near-perfect trilogy, that would be absolutely fine by me.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated The Surgeon (Rizzoli & Isles, #1) in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b>Trigger warning:</b> this book is heavily focused on sexual assault and rape.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
This novel is certainly very captivating. I found it difficult to put it down once I had picked it up! I loved the crime and mysterious criminal and I loved the pace of it all. Sometimes, these crime novels can burst with excitement for one second, and then fizzle out until the last few pages, or, completely the opposite of that, be total non-stop action, but feel really over the top and unrealistic. This, on the other hand, had a great mix of action and downtime.
I loved the setting for this, it felt so retro with its mention of floppy disks, pagers, and cassette tapes! This whole book was really well described and brought to life. It felt so real, you completely lost yourselves in the characters worlds. The horror of each murder and plot reveal really grabs you by the throat and give you goosebumps. There’s no escaping the terror in this one.
As for the crime, this one is certainly unique… and gruesome! If you’re like me, and don’t like the thought of surgery or human anatomy, then this will certainly be a struggle to read as it contains many in-depth scenes where we’re walked through what’s happening on the inside of the body. That certainly made it a little hard for me to read because I have this slight fear of our insides and all descriptions of it, but I was too intrigued as to who the killer was, to put it down. While not a particularly twisty turny story, there are plenty of characters in this novel to keep you guessing on who the real killer is.
This always seems to happen to me, but I just can’t seem to get on with female detectives in these kinds of series. Rizzoli wasn’t the worst I have come across, but she still got on my nerves. I’m well aware the message this book was trying to put across was all to do with a “woman in a man’s world”, and I can feel for Rizzoli, it would be hard to be taken seriously in a homicide department in 2001 as a woman… But!!! It was not necessary for her to act as though every single man she encountered was an enemy, needing to be destroyed and put in his place. If she wanted to be taken so seriously as a woman, I’m surprised she couldn’t utter the word “tampon” and described it as being a “disgusting object”. (I have seen this point mentioned by other reviewers and some have said the “fear” of tampons could be a generational thing).
I also wasn’t a fan of the underlying tone this book had, that “all men are capable of evil”. <i>Everyone</i> is capable of evil, why were only men being targeted in this book? Now, I don’t want to sound anti-feminist or something with me saying all this stuff, but I felt the book was a bit radical with some of it’s points about men being raping, murdering bastards. Again, I would like to put my hands up and say I’m <i>really</i> not trying to trivialise or undermine rape “victims” (I prefer the term survivors myself) because I’m close to several, I know how much it fucks them up, but I did feel like this book was a bit heavy hitting towards the male gender as a whole, rather than to the select few scumbags who do that sort of thing <i>(just to rehash this point, I’m not some kind of rape apologist, I just didn’t feel the book needed to be so anti-man).</i>
Another problem I had with this book was sometimes it seemed to have an undermining stance on rape, calling it a woman’s “shameful secret” as though it was their own fault they had been abused in this way. There was also a moment where Rizzoli called herself a “victim of The Surgeon” because she had fucked up part of the investigation, which I thought was completely inappropriate. Comparing a job related incident that was your own fault to being kidnapped and raped is just disgusting. <i>That</i> really got on my nerves. Another thing that grated on me was the overuse of the word “victim” when it came to the rape survivors, but I can imagine that’s more to do with the time this book came out than anything else.
Also!!! (<b>Not a spoiler</b>) There is a disgusting comment on suicide nearer the end of the novel, where Rizzoli calls a man who killed himself a “loser who ate his gun” and “pathetic enough to blow his own brains out”.
Even after having those couple of issues with this novel, I still enjoyed it enough to finish it but I won’t forget the offensiveness of it. I’m going to give myself a break from this series for a month or so, just to really review whether use want to continue with writing I find so problematic. If any of you have gone on to read more of this series, please let me know if it gets any better by not taking digs at traumatised women and mental illness.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.
It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.
The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.
Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.
Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.
I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.
While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.
Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.
When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.
What you should do
You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
I'd managed to see the Terminator and T2 in a double bill at the cinema and was shocked to discover I hadn't seen the first one... I really thought I had! Retro films on the big screen are amazing and I need to find the person I need to bribe to get some of my favourites shown.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Dani is working hard to help support her family, she's happy and carefree living with her father, brother and dog, Taco. But today is going to change her life forever.
Grace drops into the world violently, her mission is to protect Dani from a machine sent back to kill her. It's a familiar story, but the Rev-9's aren't like the Terminators, they're relentless and nearly indestructible. Grace and Dani find some unexpected back-up when Sarah Connor joins the hunt, aiding their escape and leading them to another ally for their mission.
Straight off the bat I want to say I loved this film, I'm going to compare it to 2018's Halloween. Neither franchise is something I'm an expert in but these new incarnations to me feel quite respectful to the originals and manage to give us a successful modern take. They both create a homage of things that came before them, and I like that.
The film opens in a great way with the interview tape of Sarah Connor and I thought it was really clever to mix it with consistent effects onto the studio logos/trailers. I was also impressed with the flashback scene of Sarah and John... I genuinely thought I'd missed something from the previous films because I hadn't seen this footage. It was in fact done with a body double and some CGI from what I've read. The quality of the effects in this bit were amazing and I couldn't tell that it wasn't actual footage, it really threw me for a loop.
Our original characters have both developed since their outing in T2. Sarah is much more purposeful but I have to wonder what she was doing between the times she recounts during the film. The Terminator has managed to adapt to his own sort of "human" life, which again, looks like it's got a few holes in it, but neither case really had me pondering until after the film. Linda Hamilton gives a relaxed kick-ass action performance, Sarah has clearly honed her skills and has little emotion apart from hatred coursing through her veins when she's on a mission, it gave a satisfying little lift to things for me. I couldn't help but believe her attitude to everything, still a little bit of the crazy about her but her determination to keep the machines from rising gives her laser focus.
The Terminator, now going by the name Carl is left to do his own thing after completing his mission. I don't know how I feel about this, would there not have been programming beyond his original mission? Anyway, I can't go down that rabbit hole. I thought Arnie's performance was really good, he's still got that "unintentionally" funny thing down well and the chemistry between him and Hamilton really shone through. He's also done well to get Carl to be quite natural while still being a giant robot, had he played it human I don't think I'd have been so onboard... though I don't know how I felt about his new career.
Having the enhanced human character of Grace stopped the sequences from being too flat. With the emotionless side of things previously it was difficult to engage with all the scenes. Mackenzie Davis gets to do the Terminator acting while still being human, you get the human panic and the machine reacting and the blend works well. Her relationship with Dani is a nice one to follow and getting to see her backstory in flashbacks... wait, flashforwards... really added to it all.
Sadly I was disappointed with Dani in general, she's just kind of dragged along with everything and even though she was essentially our Sarah Connor of this film there's very little happening with her. Her character doesn't have enough substance, she doesn't have enough in her to play with the big boys around her. Dani is also confusing in the future story for several reasons, including issues with time travel which I'm not even going to get into.
Overall the effects were very good. The way the Rev-9 movies is unnatural and enthralling to watch and Gabriel Luna's performance was impressive when you think about how he'd have to act and react to some of the more sci-fi moments. The effects weren't great throughout though and in the underwater scene with Arnie and the Rev-9 I was frowning slightly at the screen. The whole thing had a rather misty feel to it and was much more distracting than you'd think.
The other thing I feel is worth mentioning is that there are some odd choices with slow-motion shots. I couldn't see any correlation between the shots and why they'd been chosen for this effect, some happened close together and others happened out on their own and hardly any fit naturally into the scenes. The only one that felt right was Grace sizing up her shot early on, it showed us one of her abilities and that worked well, but after that they felt more like they were trying to show off more than actually picking spots that would have any impact.
Dark Fate has a lot of nice little nods back to the originals and that made for a satisfying watch. There's subtle humour and surprisingly some emotional scenes too, I came out of this and felt really content having seen it. Despite my quibbles, or which I now realise there were many, I really enjoyed this film.
What you should do
It's definitely worth a watch, it's some good mindless action and I think it's a good follow on to the original two films.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Some super robot enhancements wouldn't go amiss.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
