Search
Search results
Christina Haynes (148 KP) rated War of the Cards in Books
Feb 16, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
WAR OF THE CARDS
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
COLLEEN OAKES
352
FAIRYTALE RETELLINGS / FANTASY
She paused and drew a finger dramatically across her neck.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
The army answered back.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!”
This book gave me chills!
Sypnosis:
The final book in the twisted YA trilogy re-imagining of the origin story of the Queen of Hearts. Dinah has lost everyone she ever loved. Her brother was brutally murdered. The wicked man she believed was her father betrayed her. Her loyal subjects have been devastated by war. And the boy she gave her heart to broke it completely.
Main characters:
– Dinah (the Queen of Hearts)
– Wardley
– Cheshire
– Sir Gorrann
– Mundoo
Main events:
Dinah is now ready for battle against her “father” the King of Hearts. Her and her gang of Yurkei – Spades and friends, head off the palace to battle for the crown.
Most exciting part:
When Dinah steps through the sky curtain. Ooh.
My favourite part:
The battle scene – you see how much Dinah’s character development has changed.
My summary:
Very good book – a great ending to the series. I love retellings and this one is one of my favourites. Great links and references to the original stories with names and descriptions.
My Review:
The Queen of Hearts she made some tarts all on a summer’s day. The Knave of Hearts he stole the tarts and took them clean away. The King of Hearts called for the tarts and beat the Knave full sore. The Knave of Hearts brought back the tarts and vowed he’d steal no more.
This story isn’t a nice as that poem, this story involves heartbreak, love, murder, revenge, family feuds and lots of secret plotting. Colleen Oakes turns a classic story into an amazing retelling of the infamous Queen of Hearts.
SPOILERS
Dinah is born into royalty, daughter of Queen Davianna and the cruel King of Hearts. Dinah’s mother died when she was young, leaving her and her Mad as a Hatter brother Charles alone. After her brother is murdered in cold blood Dinah is soon to be blamed by the King of Hearts and the rest of the Kingdom. She soon flees after a man in a cloak tells her to run and leave the palace.
She leaves her Kingdom and the love of her life Wardley behind and ends up in the Twisted Woods. Throughout the first two books, you see her hate her father and why. She finds out she has a sister called Vittiore who in fact is not her sister and her father lied about who she actually was, by claiming he met someone who later became pregnant, when in fact he found her and made her pretend she was his daughter. The way he treats Dinah and her brother. How the cruel King rules Wonderland and treats his people.
You travel with Dinah and a Spade called Sir Gorrann, (who she meets in the Twisted Woods) to where the Yureki live. You meet them and find out they are in fact good people who later help her take the role as Queen of Hearts.
But most importantly you find out that her father is, in fact, Cheshire the King of Heart’s loyal advisor. Who was “in love” with Queen Davianna and had a secret affair with her which lead to Dinah. I say “in love” because later it’s revealed that all along Cheshire had planned this moment and wanted to be apart of Wonderland more closely like having a daughter as the Queen of Hearts! So it’s unclear whether he did actually love her, or if he loved the fact of her. As we all know Cheshire loves himself.
The third book for me tests Dinah in more ways, what she has been through is a lot. But now she has to face rejection from the man she has always loved. Becoming a leader of many men who in fact don’t get along. Realising all her life she has feared a man who isn’t actually her father, who is the real reason her mother died; through neglect. Her brother wasn’t murdered by who she thought – the King of Hearts. Her sister isn’t her sister. But most importantly Dinah learns how to keep her head.
I loved this series because I loved Dinah. I felt for her the whole time and not once did I hate her. Yes, she did something so bad and later regretted it by cutting off Vittiore’s head when she saw her and Wardley in bed together – which later made him hate her. But she also beat the King of Hearts, led an army of Yurkei and Spades to war and beat the Kings army. Trained a Hornhoov called Morte who was her loyal friend till the end. She even went into the Sky Curtain and came out alive. She kept her promises of peace and followed through by changing the ways of the Wonderlanders lives. She destroyed the horrible Black Tower and changed the lives of the Spades for the better. Gave Cheshire his just desserts, tried to make amends with Wardley and became the Queen Wonderland needs and deserves.
Dinah is amazing and despite a few bad things she has done, she is a good person who knows right and wrong and wants to makes things better and I loved following her on this journey throughout Wonderland.
Rating:
5 ★ – AMAZING
Love, Christina ?
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her friends have more on their plate to worry about than typical high school drama. A child murderer named Fred Krueger (Robert Englund) was killed by the parents residing on Elm Street after they took matters into their own hands when the justice system failed to get the redemption the parents so desperately seeked. That was thought to be the end of it and everyone tried to move on with their lives. That is until Nancy, her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp), her best friend Tina (Amanda Wyss), and Tina's boyfriend Rod (Jsu Garcia) begin having nightmares about the same man. A man wearing a red and green striped sweater, brown fedora, and a four finger-bladed leather glove. Could Fred Krueger really be exacting his revenge from beyond the grave and in the dreams of his victims?
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Wes Craven is probably best known for the Scream franchise since it's the most successful set of films he's ever been a part of, at least as far as the box office is concerned, but there was another film that he created that spawned seven sequels and a remake. A film that is looked at as a horror classic and is considered to be the first commercially successful release from New Line Cinema. That film is A Nightmare on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is looked at by some (including myself) as the best film in the franchise. While most of the sequels feature a Freddy that is more interested in cracking a joke than being an intimidating serial killer, the original film is where he seems to shine brightest. He seems to always be lurking in the shadows making it nearly impossible to get a clear look at his face. Remember when films left a bit of a mystery to things rather than being entirely realistic and showing every little detail when it came to gore? Well, this is a good example.
The deaths of Tina and Glen could arguably be reason alone to watch the film. Tina's death is so original and so well done. One of the reasons it still holds up today is because it was done with practical effects. The same can be said about Glen's death. The only thing more impressive than his death is the fact that it's Johnny Depp's debut. Both deaths are two of the most memorable in horror film history.
Despite A Nightmare on Elm Street being one of the most influential horror films of our time, it still has that cheesiness associated with most horror films that come out of the eighties. Bad acting (Heather Langenkamp especially. The "Screw your pass!" scene is a good example, but is hilarious in its own right) and dated special effects being the best examples. While the practical effects are a good thing and are much preferred over CGI, some of them haven't aged well over the past 26 years. The scene of Freddy chasing Tina is probably the best example of this. His arms stretching inhuman lengths to scratch the walls and Tina ripping off his face just didn't hold up as well as other effects in the film.
A Nightmare on Elm Street is a beloved horror classic that gave birth to one of the most iconic serial killers in the genre. The original film features some of the most creative deaths and practical effects (seeing Freddy in the wall above Nancy's bed in the beginning of the film is one of the best scenes) to come out of any horror film held in such high regard. The film's charm will go over a lot of people's heads who look into it for the first time after seeing the remake which will probably result in the film getting more flack than it deserves. But nevertheless, it's hard to deny the impact Freddy and Wes Craven have had on this genre thanks to this film.
Special Features: The two-disc Infinifilm is packed with extras including:
Feature commentary including a variety of topics: the financial problems the film had with writer/director Wes Craven, producer Bob Shaye, actor John Saxon, and cinematographer Jacques Haitkin sharing their thoughts, Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven talk about how great it was to work with Johnny Depp, Amanda Wyss goes into detail about not knowing much about the horror genre before taking her role as Tina, a discussion of how Robert Englund got the role of Fred Krueger and Englund shares his thoughts on the Fred Krueger character. Everything from the problems the film had to Freddy's popularity to the film's reputation and more are discussed by the cast and crew.
Original commentary includes Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon, Wes Craven, and Jacques Haitkin.
Beyond the Movie Features include The House That Freddy Built: The Legacy of New Line Horror and Night Terrors: The Origins of Wes Craven's Nightmares.
All Access Pass Features include three alternate endings, Never Sleep Again: The making of A Nightmare on Elm Street, a trivia challenge and the theatrical trailer.
There's also Infinifilm bonus features that can be accessed while the film is playing and the original screenplay can be viewed as a DVD-ROM feature.
The film is remastered and restored from the original film negative and is presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1-EX surround sound and DTS-ES 6.1 Surround Sound.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
On a dark and silent night, a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), treads carefully through the streets of London unaware of the direction her life is about to take. As an attractive young lady, sneaking out of her home after curfew is filled with peril, especially when she is confronted by a gang of local thugs who happen to work for the government. Despite her protests, the men set up Evey only to be confronted by a masked figure.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
The masked figure quickly dispatches the assailants and offers to escort Evey to safety. Despite being scared, Evey does accompany the figure to a rooftop where she is treated to a spectacular explosion set to music.
Thus begins V for Vendetta a film that mixes “The Phantom of the Opera” “Beauty and the Beast” and ?” to create a gothic love story and biting social commentary about the dangers of governmental control and censorship in a society gone awry.
In London of the near future, it is learned that a series of terrorist attacks have left thousands dead which resulted in stricter governmental controls and intrusions into privacy and lifestyles. Those who did not conform nor meet expectations often vanished never to be heard from again. Such was the case of Evey’s parents who decided to protest governmental policies and soon found themselves beaten and whisked away in the night.
Behind all of the oppression is a man named Adam Sutler (John Hurt), a monomaniacal leader who rules with an iron fist and an extreme agenda that he has manipulated to make himself and unopposed ruler of the nation.
While most of the population lives in fear of Sutler and his men, there is one who does not, a mysterious masked figure named V (Hugo Weaving), who dons a Guy Fawkes mask in tribute to the man who centuries ago attempted to destroy Parliament. When V is able to temporarily gain control of the television network for the government, he is able to broadcast his message to the people that the time has come to take back their lives and society and stop living in fear. Towards this end, V pledges to the masses that he will destroy Parliament in 1 year and that the people should gather to watch the destruction unfold.
This bold proclamation causes Sutler to stop at nothing to capture V and he tasks his Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea), to locate V. Since Evey worked at the television station and was observed helping V on a security monitor, Finch decides to locate Evey and force her to reveal the locale of the mysterious vigilante.
This task proves difficult as V has taken Evey into his protection and forces her to live in his luxurious yet secluded home in order to avoid the police forces.
It is during this time that Evey learns that V is a study in contrast. On one hand he is a very sophisticated person with a taste for the arts, culture, and a desire to see people free to live their lives as they desire.
During this time V also kills top members of the political party and with the discovery of each new victim, he becomes an even bigger target of a very irate Sutler.
All of which culminates in a race against the clock for V to complete his plan and exact his revenge for past wrongdoings done to him which propels the film to its climatic finale.
While the film is an interesting and at times enjoyable film it is hampered in some ways by a marketing program where early trailers showed the film to be an action filled romp. The truth is there is about 15-20 minutes of action in the films nearly 2hr and 10 minute run time which allows the majority of the film to be spent on the interaction between V and Evey.
While this is interesting and does bring in elements of “Phantom” and “Beauty” as I mentioned earlier, it is at the sacrifice of what I think are important factors. For example we learn a bit about why V is on his vendetta but serious questions from that are not answered. We do not learn the full what, where and why, on his situation. I am trying hard to avoid spoilers here so suffice it to say there are some very important questions about what was done to him, how he survived and so on that need to be answered but are not.
The action sequences though few and far between are well staged and Weaving and Portman have a great chemistry with one another and do make interesting and compelling characters.
The main strength of the film is the message that people need to be aware of what is going on around them and not be so willing to accept everything they are told at face value. There is a real sense of counter-culture with the film as the prevalent theme of question and if needed defy authority permeates the film.
The script written by the Wachowski brothers of The Matrix trilogy fame has chosen to tone down the gimmicky of bullet time effects and instead focus on a character driven drama with a message and it is one that resounds loudly and clearly.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 11, 2019 (Updated Aug 11, 2019)
The monsters. (1 more)
Special effects - blend of CG and practical.
The Pale Lady. (2 more)
Basic rinse and repeat horror formula.
No emotional attachment to characters.
Fishing for Turds
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is probably considered the introduction to horror fiction for anyone who was in middle school in the mid to late 1990s. I distinctly remember checking out at least one of the books before I was a teenager, but the story that has stuck with me multiple decades later has and always will be, “The Red Spot.” The thing about the Scary Stories books is that they were just these random collections of creepy tales meant to make the reader anxious, uneasy, or even frightened, so the fact that somebody attempted to make a coherent film out of a jumbled mix of stories from all three books is kind of incredible.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
The horror film directed by André Øvredal (Trollhunter, The Autopsy of Jane Doe) follows a group of teenagers in the small town of Mill Valley, Pennsylvania during Halloween in 1968. Stella (Zoe Colletti) is a die-hard fan of the horror genre, Auggie (Gabriel Rush) is a bit too infatuated with girls for his own good, and Chuck (Austin Zajur) lives on candy and pranks when he’s not driving his older sister Ruth (Natalie Ganzhorn) insane. They cross paths with a mysterious drifter named Ramon (Michael Garza) who joins the group seemingly out of boredom.
They initially use trick or treating as a front for revenge against local jock and full-time bully Tommy (Austin Abrams), which leads them to a condemned and rumored to be haunted house of the Bellows family. Sarah Bellows lived in isolation and dramatically killed herself because of her family. Sarah turned her devastating life into inspiration for a series of terrifying stories. After Stella discovers the book Sarah wrote her stories in, strange things begin happening in Mill Valley and everyone in the Bellows house from that night becomes a target.
The monsters of the film attempt to be as explicitly accurate as possible to Stephen Gammell’s original illustrations from the Scary Stories books. This typically pays off, especially with Harold the Scarecrow and The Toe Monster but it seems to backfire with The Pale Lady. While she does still look like a living incarnation of Gammell’s artwork, the story has the weakest conclusion of the entire film. Scary Stories makes up for this by introducing The Jangly Man, who is seriously worth the price of admission alone even if you typically can’t understand a word that he says. The Jangly Man contorts his body in the most inhuman of ways, can separate all of his limbs from his torso, and has this bloodcurdling voice that rattles your insides.
There’s been an emphasis on the lack of a narrative in Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. That may be true, but the film is based on a trilogy of books that is close to thirty years old and is supposed to be aimed at younger readers. The film adapts the stories in a way that isn’t totally successful, but it is surprisingly great at times. Despite some recognizable names in the supporting cast such as Dean Norris (Breaking Bad), Gil Bellows (The Shawshank Redemption), and Lorraine Toussaint (Orange is the New Black), the main cast is mostly filled with unknowns. Some reviews claim that the acting isn’t up to par, but I was pleasantly surprised. Austin Zajur can be annoying as the mischievous Chuck, but he was also rather humorous the majority of the time. Zoe Colletti goes a little overboard when she cries, but she’s also solid when she gushes over horror. Austin Abrams is seriously nasty as Tommy. He is always sweaty and has no remorse for anyone. He takes bullying to frightening heights.
I guess I expected the film to be corny (pun intended) with lame PG-13 kills and a cast that had no idea what they were doing. The film managed to make me a fan during the Harold segment. That surround sound in the cornfield is masterful with the wind blowing through corn stalks in every direction and the rusty creaking of the scarecrow as he tries to walk. How these teenagers are terrorized manages to transcend what movie ratings typically mean for a given film; this would be unsettling regardless of what it’s rated or how old the viewer is.
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is not a perfect horror anthology since it’s extremely simple in concept. A monster shows up, a kid disappears, and then it’s rinse and repeat for an hour and 47 minutes. At the same time though, it’s probably the scariest film of the summer and could potentially become the next big horror franchise. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark could easily take over where the Final Destination films left off or even be this generation’s answer to that. The practical effects mixed with just the right amount of CGI for the monsters are what really sell the film. Despite being as disjointed and unnatural as The Jangly Man, Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is way more amusing and eerie than it has any right to be.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020
Introduce a horror icon (3 more)
Robert Englund
Freddy
Wes Craven
Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street- is one of my all time favorite horror films. Its also one of the greatest horror movies of all time. That being said, the ending sucks and i will get to that, but first lets talk more about the film.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
I just love the idea of someone who appears in your dreams. Someone who stalks you, someone who messes with you, someone who kills you in your dreams. Now Wes got the idea from several newspaper articles printed in the Los Angeles Times in the 1970s about Southeast Asian refugees, who, after fleeing to the United States because of war and genocide in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, suffered disturbing nightmares and refused to sleep. Some of the men died in their sleep soon after and some of his own childhood nightmares.
The idea of Freddy was Craven's early life. One night, a young Craven saw an elderly man walking on the sidepath outside the window of his home. The man stopped to glance at a startled Craven and walked off. Now Initially, Fred Krueger was intended to be a child molester, but Craven eventually characterized him as a child murderer to avoid being accused of exploiting a spate of highly publicized child molestation cases that occurred in California around the time of production of the film. This idea happened in the 2010 remake.
Lets talk about the plot: In Wes Craven's classic slasher film, several Midwestern teenagers fall prey to Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), a disfigured midnight mangler who preys on the teenagers in their dreams -- which, in turn, kills them in reality. After investigating the phenomenon, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp) begins to suspect that a dark secret kept by her and her friends' parents may be the key to unraveling the mystery, but can Nancy and her boyfriend Glen (Johnny Depp) solve the puzzle before it's too late?
The plot/story is excellent, the mystery surrounded of Krueger. Who he exactly is, why is he do this, what made him do this, how do the parnets know about Krueger? All of these questions and more your trying to figure out and the movie does a excellent job explaining them.
The deaths: the death scenes are excellent. Tina revolving around her room, Rod's bed sheets wrapping around him while he is in a prison cell and dies hanging and Glen getting pulled through his bed and then his blood gushes to the ceiling. Excellent deaths and memorable.
The Ending: Craven originally planned for the film to have a more evocative ending: Nancy kills Krueger by ceasing to believe in him, then awakens to discover that everything that happened in the film was an elongated nightmare. However, New Line leader Robert Shaye demanded a twist ending, in which Krueger disappears and all seems to have been a dream, only for the audience to discover that it was a dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream.
According to Craven, "The original ending of the script has Nancy come out the door. It's an unusually cloudy and foggy day. A car pulls up with her dead friends in it. She's startled. She goes out and gets in the car wondering what the hell is going on, and they drive off into the fog, with the mother left standing on the doorstep and that's it. It was very brief, and suggestive that maybe life is sort of dream-like too. Shaye wanted Freddy Krueger to be driving the car, and have the kids screaming. It all became very negative. I felt a philosophical tension to my ending. Shaye said, "That's so 60s, it's stupid." I refused to have Freddy in the driver's seat, and we thought up about five different endings. The one we used, with Freddy pulling the mother through the doorway amused us all so much, we couldn't not use it."
Heather Langenkamp states that "there always was this sense that Freddy was the car", while according to Sara Risher, "it was always Wes' idea to pan to the little girls' jumping rope". Both a happy ending and a twist ending were filmed, but the final film used the twist ending. As a result, Craven who never wanted the film to be an ongoing franchise, did not work on the first sequel, Freddy's Revenge (1985).
Also Nancy's mom getting pulles through the window door was wierd and you can tell it was a blow up doll.
The Music: The lyrics for Freddy's theme song, sung by the jumprope children throughout the series and based on One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, was already written and included in the script when Bernstein started writing the soundtrack, while the melody for it was not set by Bernstein, but by Heather Langenkamp's boyfriend and soon-to-be husband at the time, Alan Pasqua, who was a musician himself. One of the three girls who recorded the vocal part of the theme was Robert Shaye's then 14-year-old daughter. Per the script, the lyrics are as follow: One two, Freddie's coming for you.Three four, better lock your door. Five six, grab your crucifix. Seven eight, gonna stay up late. Nine ten, never sleep again.
End Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street is a excellent horror movie, it introduces a horror icon, has great charcters, has great death scenes and above all is perfect. Thank you Wes for giving us this movie.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Entertaining Hell Yes, Great Hell No
Hellboy is a 2019 supernatural superhero movie based on the Dark Horse Comics character created by Mike Mignola. It is the third film in the franchise and is also a reboot of the series. It is directed by Neil Marshall with screenplay by Andrew Cosby and distributed by Lionsgate. The film stars David Harbour, Millar Jovovich, Ian McShane and Daniel Dae Kim.
In the Dark Ages, Nimue, the Blood Queen, nearly destroyed humanity with a deadly plague. Immortal, she was only defeated by King Arthur with the help of Merlin and the magical blade Excalibur. She was beheaded, dismembered, and her remains scattered over Europe. In present day Tijuana, Hellboy (David Harbour), searches for a missing B.P.R.D. agent, Ruiz. Hellboy discovers Ruiz has been turned into a vampire and while trying to reason with him, Hellboy is forced into a confrontation which ultimately leads to the death of the agent. Meanwhile a mysterious person speaks with Baba Yaga, a witch-like creature, seeking revenge on Hellboy, and is told to locate the remains of Nimue and resurrect her.
This has been a really hard movie for me to review. I genuinely enjoyed it while watching it in theaters. That being said, this movie is a train wreck and I can't recommend for people to spend money to see it unless you wait for it to be at the dollar movies or Redbox. There were just so many things that I guess I was blind to while watching it, that i just shrugged off or didn't pay much attention to. Like all my reviews this will be as spoiler free as possible but i have to acknowledge major flaws that other critics and reviewers brought up. And there were a lot, I mean right now the critics are tearing this movie a new one. First, I thought David Harbour did as good a job as anyone could do replacing Ron Pearlman as Hellboy in this film. But replacing such a beloved and likeable character with a funny and charismatic personality which Pearlman made his own, he had his work cut out for him. I don't think he's ever acted with all the makeup and prosthetics and it showed because I don't think he was as expressive as he could have been. Plus this movie was also made with a different director and not Guillermo Del Toro, so it was already going to have a way different feel to it. To me though, those weren't the things that contributed the most to the failure of this movie, it's more of the other things I'm still getting to. This was a reboot of the series and they decided to go with a different group of supporting characters, and to also make the plot or story more closely related or similar to the comics (the source material). Now usually sticking with what the comics have for the story is always better than changing it in my opinion but it seems for this film that they chose to incorporate several different storylines and characters and felt like it was too much crammed into too little. Also this movie was all over the place, story wise and literally. It seemed the characters kept having to travel unnecessarily. It felt like the supporting characters were just thrown into the story and it didn't bother to introduce them to the audience correctly. Everyone just got a flashback and or had themselves or their origin "expositioned" into the movie. I liked a lot of the character designs and thought a lot of the CGI was well done, in places, however it seems like they had different animators or studios work on different scenes or characters and some of it was horrible. The dialogue was really bad too. There were a lot of jokes and one liners that just fell flat and nobody laughed, plus like i said way too much exposition. There was a character who wears a headdress that was so big it looked ridiculous, which I wonder if it was done on purpose. And there was a character whose clothes tear when they transform and they automatically have pants when they transform back, which makes no sense. The plot too was not very sound and full of plot holes and things that didn't make sense, were just added in, or were part of scenes that got cut along the way. It hurts me to give this movie a score so low but I give this movie a 5/10.
Now I'm not saying don't watch it. I just can't recommend you drop as much cash as you usually do to see it in theaters. I personally still really enjoyed it and was genuinely entertained. It was awesome to see the blood and gore in a darker Hellboy movie and the action was great even if the CGI always wasn't. The music even if it didn't fit the tone or every scene was great. If your expecting the Hellboy from the Guillermo Del Toro films you might just hate this movie. But if you're just looking for "Big Red" to beat up on some baddies then I think you might get a kick out of this movie. Hey, some critics are saying that it's so bad it's good.
In the Dark Ages, Nimue, the Blood Queen, nearly destroyed humanity with a deadly plague. Immortal, she was only defeated by King Arthur with the help of Merlin and the magical blade Excalibur. She was beheaded, dismembered, and her remains scattered over Europe. In present day Tijuana, Hellboy (David Harbour), searches for a missing B.P.R.D. agent, Ruiz. Hellboy discovers Ruiz has been turned into a vampire and while trying to reason with him, Hellboy is forced into a confrontation which ultimately leads to the death of the agent. Meanwhile a mysterious person speaks with Baba Yaga, a witch-like creature, seeking revenge on Hellboy, and is told to locate the remains of Nimue and resurrect her.
This has been a really hard movie for me to review. I genuinely enjoyed it while watching it in theaters. That being said, this movie is a train wreck and I can't recommend for people to spend money to see it unless you wait for it to be at the dollar movies or Redbox. There were just so many things that I guess I was blind to while watching it, that i just shrugged off or didn't pay much attention to. Like all my reviews this will be as spoiler free as possible but i have to acknowledge major flaws that other critics and reviewers brought up. And there were a lot, I mean right now the critics are tearing this movie a new one. First, I thought David Harbour did as good a job as anyone could do replacing Ron Pearlman as Hellboy in this film. But replacing such a beloved and likeable character with a funny and charismatic personality which Pearlman made his own, he had his work cut out for him. I don't think he's ever acted with all the makeup and prosthetics and it showed because I don't think he was as expressive as he could have been. Plus this movie was also made with a different director and not Guillermo Del Toro, so it was already going to have a way different feel to it. To me though, those weren't the things that contributed the most to the failure of this movie, it's more of the other things I'm still getting to. This was a reboot of the series and they decided to go with a different group of supporting characters, and to also make the plot or story more closely related or similar to the comics (the source material). Now usually sticking with what the comics have for the story is always better than changing it in my opinion but it seems for this film that they chose to incorporate several different storylines and characters and felt like it was too much crammed into too little. Also this movie was all over the place, story wise and literally. It seemed the characters kept having to travel unnecessarily. It felt like the supporting characters were just thrown into the story and it didn't bother to introduce them to the audience correctly. Everyone just got a flashback and or had themselves or their origin "expositioned" into the movie. I liked a lot of the character designs and thought a lot of the CGI was well done, in places, however it seems like they had different animators or studios work on different scenes or characters and some of it was horrible. The dialogue was really bad too. There were a lot of jokes and one liners that just fell flat and nobody laughed, plus like i said way too much exposition. There was a character who wears a headdress that was so big it looked ridiculous, which I wonder if it was done on purpose. And there was a character whose clothes tear when they transform and they automatically have pants when they transform back, which makes no sense. The plot too was not very sound and full of plot holes and things that didn't make sense, were just added in, or were part of scenes that got cut along the way. It hurts me to give this movie a score so low but I give this movie a 5/10.
Now I'm not saying don't watch it. I just can't recommend you drop as much cash as you usually do to see it in theaters. I personally still really enjoyed it and was genuinely entertained. It was awesome to see the blood and gore in a darker Hellboy movie and the action was great even if the CGI always wasn't. The music even if it didn't fit the tone or every scene was great. If your expecting the Hellboy from the Guillermo Del Toro films you might just hate this movie. But if you're just looking for "Big Red" to beat up on some baddies then I think you might get a kick out of this movie. Hey, some critics are saying that it's so bad it's good.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Hello there! It’s been six weeks since my last post – Covid 19 related restriction issues sent me to a very odd place mentally and it has taken me a while to snap out of it enough to have the energy and will to keep writing these reviews. But what better way to recomense than with the history making Best Picture film from earlier in this strange year of 2020, before all the things that changed our way of thinking began?
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
The hype surrounding this movie in January was immense, for a film coming from Korea out of the blue, with an image and plot that didn’t fit into any of the normal marketing boxes. Every review ranged from this is incredible to… just see it for yourself. Nothing could have been more intriguing. I was certainly hooked on the idea, although by the time the Oscars came around I still hadn’t managed to see it at the cinema.
I found it fascinating that the academy had chosen 2020 as the year to change the dodgy sounding “Best Foreign Language film” to “Best International film”. It was about time, really, to acknowledge the us and them philosophy of world cinema didn’t really wash. And as the sublime Roma had paved the way for non English films to be considered again in all the main categories as serious contenders, I just had a feeling this was the year Oscar would make a statement with this film.
And so it turned out to be. It was a strong year. At the time I was a huge Joker advocate, having not yet seen 1917 either. Looking back now, I think, although not as perfect as Roma the year before, Parasite certainly deserves the praise and accolades it garnered from all around the world. Although any of those 3 films (Parasite, 1917 and Joker) would have been obvious winners in any other less competitive year.
So what is it about Parasite that raises it above the masses? Well, for a start it looks both beautiful and awe inspiring in every shot. Each image is designed and framed expertly to create a montage of mood and form that holds the multi-layered storytelling in place. Rarely have I seen such a well balanced and crisp visual design for a film, of any kind. Even with the subtitles off there is plenty to engage the eye and mind here. But it’s real secret is how it draws you in to believing you are watching one kind of satirical drama for about 40 minutes and then punches you in the solar plexus with the revelation that it has mutated into something darker, weirder and more entertaining on every level.
The “twist” when it comes along is so well placed and unexpected, even if you are told to expect one, that it entirely transforms your experience. You have been engaging with social issues and a basic satire on the rich vs the poor, where true power is a good wifi signal, and then, blam, you are watching a modern horror story with truly disturbing ramifications. I found this gear shift riveting and striking in a way that I can’t remember from a film in a long time.
But, looking back on it after several months, is that tonal shift really a strength? Some criticism, however minor in the scheme of things, did point this out, that what we get with Parasite is an unfocused and confused mix of genres that doesn’t entirely cohere. I mean, I see that, but have to disagree, simply because the writing at every point is too intelligent and sharp to give a damn about staying still and balanced on just one idea. Parasite is an exercise in energetic chaos that juggles many balls, all as interesting as one another, without dropping any of them.
Poverty, class, elitism, generational gaps, vanity, work ethics and morality, roles within a family unit, loyalty, weakness, revenge and bitterness are all themes here, and many more. Start going down the alley of one conversation that Parasite starts and end up somewhere entirely different in just a few sentences. And that is why it is worth seeing, several times. And that is why it works and was rewarded.
Is it a film I will be keen to see over again as the years pass? Yes and no. I’d probably be most interested to see it with someone who hasn’t seen it, to see their reaction. But I’m much less likely to give it multiple watches than the previous mentioned Joker and 1917, or indeed Roma, which I just can’t help comparing it to, even though they have virtually nothing in common, as I wish it had been Roma that made history at the awards rather than this. Of course, it is personal taste at that level of quality, but I believe Roma to be the better film.
If nothing else, however, Parasite marks the graduation of Bong Joon Ho, from a quirky filmmaker, whose interesting but not quite great near misses include The Host, Snowpiercer and Okja – all entertaining but flawed – to an auteur of considerable skill. Will the elements of his mind and vision ever align this well again. I hope so. I’ll be looking out for it, as will the rest of the world now.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
Lee (2222 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
Hustlers is 'inspired by a true story' and is based on a New York Magazine article written by Jessica Pressler in 2015 titled "The Hustlers at Scores". The tagline for that article was “Here’s a modern Robin Hood story for you: a few strippers who stole from (mostly) rich, (usually) disgusting, (in their minds) pathetic men and gave to, well, themselves" - something which pretty much sums up the entire plot of the movie. You'd be forgiven for thinking you'd seen this kind of thing a hundred times before, and to be honest the trailer didn't really do it any justice either in my opinion. But, turns out that Hustlers is actually a pretty slick and hugely entertaining piece of fun, something that I wasn't expecting to like anywhere near as much as I did.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
We're in 2007 and Destiny (Constance Wu) is working nights at a Manhattan strip club called Moves. Caring for her grandmother and catching up on sleep by day, it soon becomes clear that life as a stripper isn't quite as glamorous as she'd imagined it to be. With a large number of girls working at the club, competition is strong, as are the internal politics, and the clients frequenting the club are just as disgusting as you'd imagine rich drunken assholes to be. And, at the end of a shift, the money that Destiny earns is subjected to numerous deductions and penalties from the manager and doorman as they all take their cuts, leaving Destiny with not very much at all.
And then one night, as the DJ introduces her, "The one, the only, Ramona!" (Jennifer Lopez) hits the stage to show everyone how it's all done, highlighting to Destiny the kind of money she could be making if she upped her game. Dominating the main stage, Ramona masterfully works the pole as she slinks around in time to the music. And it clearly works too - dollar bills shower her, and cover the stage, while the stunned onlookers lose their minds and overreact like something out of a Tex Avery cartoon.
Destiny follows Ramona up onto the roof, where she's taking time out for a smoke break and it's not long before Ramona decides to take Destiny under her wing. Along with showing her the more dexterously impressive moves on stage, she also reveals the three levels of client who visit the club and how to best work them to your advantage. They become good friends, working together to earn more than either of them have before. But then, during 2008, the recession hits and the club no longer benefits from the wild spending habits of Wall Street's biggest earners. Destiny becomes pregnant, leaving the club along with most of the other girls, but struggles to re-enter the workforce a few years later having had no real experience outside of a strip club. And then she meets up with Ramona once more, and learns about fishing...
Fishing involves the girls leaving the confines and constraints of the club in order to lure guys in from outside. Working as a group, they lace their drinks in bars (enough to make them happy, but not really conscious enough to fully appreciate or remember what happens for the rest of the night), then bringing them back to the club. There they can freely swipe their credit cards, have a great time and make thousands of dollars per night. As Ramona sells it to Destiny and the other girls they've recruited to help them, this isn't just survival, it's revenge against all of the Wall Street workers behind the recession, who had no comeback for their actions.
Occasionally the movies flashes forward a few years, where Destiny is being interviewed by the reporter who will eventually go on to write the article on their story (played by Julia Stiles). These scenes work well as a narrative device for the movie and it's clear that, while Destiny seems to have fared pretty well financially over the years, whatever she's done to get there has all gone horribly wrong at some point.
But for now, their scam works perfectly. After the lows and struggles of life as a lowly stripper, it's a real thrill to follow these girls on their journey to expensive clothes, big flashy cars and penthouse apartments. They all become like family, even enjoying an expensive Christmas together with their real families joining them. Hustlers moves beyond its humble strip club beginnings and the camaraderie and power these women develop together feels so genuine, it really makes this movie shine. Scenes where the girls go shopping, or even work together in the kitchen to perfect their drug recipe, are a lot of fun and Hustlers features just as much humour as it does drama. Much of what makes this all work so well is down to it's cast. Hustlers features some pretty strong support, but it's the pairing of Constance Wu and Jennifer Lopez that really stands out. Both are on top form, better than anything I've seen them in before and many reviews I've read are already recommending Oscar nominations for Jennifer Lopez.
Like I say, I wasn't expecting to like this as much as I thought I would based on the trailer. What I got was a fun, exhilarating story of female empowerment with a strong, solid cast. And, as the New York Magazine article so eloquently put it, a modern Robin Hood story.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Star Trek (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With declining attendance at conventions and a dwindling audience for recent films and the last Star Trek series, Enterprise, Paramount was desperate to find a way to breathe new life into their franchise. So they pinned their hopes on director J.J. Abrams. Even with a string of hit movies and television series under his belt, some believed that Abrams was facing an uphill battle in trying to resuscitate Star Trek, with its legions of rabid fans obsessively protective of the series’ 40-plus years of established history.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.
While many fans were thrilled with the choice of Abrams, some of the casting choices of its beloved characters were met with doubt and skepticism. Thankfully, the man behind such motion picture hits as “Cloverfield”, “Mission Impossible 3”, and television series LOST, Alias and Fringe, was more than up to the task and has crafted a visually spectacular action film that combines the best of Trek with groundbreaking effects and creative vitality.
Using a script by Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the new film focuses on the early days of the crew, and how young James. T. Kirk (Chris Pine) went from being a joy-riding, bar-fighting hothead into captain of the Enterprise. Kirk is challenged by Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) to live up to the legacy of his father and make something of his life in Starfleet. Despite his cocky attitude, the young man is able to thrive at the academy despite his arrogant behavior and his womanizing ways.
At the same time, a threat has arisen in the form of a Romulan named Nero (Eric Bana), who seeks to cause massive death and destruction in his quest for vengeance. With danger looming, Kirk and his fellow classmates are pressed into action, and thanks to some skillful work from his friend Leonard Mc Coy (Karl Urban), Kirk finds himself onboard the new Federation flagship Enterprise.
En route to their destination, Kirk realizes they are heading into a trap and warns Captain Pike of his concerns. Naturally this does not sit well with some of the seasoned officers, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), who sees the emotional Kirk as an unwanted reminder of his human half, which he tries to hide at all costs.
Eventually the Enterprise is confronted by Nero and in an impressive sequence of events Kirk and Sulu (John Cho), lead an orbital skydive mission to thwart Nero’s plot. Spock finds himself commanding the ship and he and Kirk, two polar opposites, disagree over a course of action. Citing insurbordination and dereliction, Spock expels Kirk from the ship onto a frigid and dangerous planet. What follows is an amazing and thrilling adventure that culminates in an impressive finale, that proves that Trek has got plenty of life left in it.
While I loved the film, I found that I had to detach myself from my love of classic Trek to fully enjoy it. The film covers changes in established cannon by setting events in an alternate timeline. Despite the different eras of the previous series and films, there was always a certain continuity to the ships, planets, and characters that always seemed to fit, which I found myself missing in this new incarnation.
In Abram’s version, the Enterprise engine room is awash in catwalks, pipes, and valves that seemed out of place on a ship set in the 23rd century. I also found myself asking why such strategically valuable planets such as Earth and Vulcan would not have massive defense fleets in orbit, and would task only a handful of ships for their defense. There was a suggestion, that the ships of the fleet were amassed elsewhere on another matter of importance, but that does not explain what would leave the planets relatively unguarded. Defense codes aside, I found it hard to believe that automated defenses would be all that was left behind, and that reinforcements were not available.
I also had an issue with what Nero was supposedly doing for 25 years and how he kept such a low profile while he plotted his revenge. The final issue I had was with product placement as I found it hard to believe that Nokia and its familiar ringtone and Budweiser would be around as Trek lore is based on the planet narrowly surviving a nuclear war in the past that nearly destroyed everything. While this may seem like minor criticism, from the perspective of a long time Star Trek fan, it contradicts much of what had been established.
Thankfully, Abrams and crew take the series in a new direction without totally losing sight of where it came from. There are many nods to the series and Abrams clearly respects the original material enough to let fans know that their beloved Trek is still there in the original timeline, with its history intact. By cleverly establishing a different timeline, Abrams has creative freedom to go in any direction he desires.
The cast is strong, with Chris Pine’s Kirk as cocky and entertaining as his predecessor. I loved Anton Yelchin as Chekov and his struggles with the English language, Simon Pegg’s quick quips as Scotty, and the sassy attitude Zoe Saldana’s injects into her Uhura. The amazing visuals and designs of the film are breathtaking and it was clear that the Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) crew pushed themselves to bring everything they had to the film. In the end, Star Trek is a remarkable film that, despite some issues, has a solid new lease on life. Abrams boldly, and triumphantly, goes where fans, old and new, will gladly follow.