Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Buster's Mal Heart (2016) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Remember before the digital revolution and on demand TV channels when you had to stay up late and watch the films shown after midnight to see anything outside of the mainstream? Quite often they were awful, cheap, rambling experiences that maybe had one or two memorable scenes, or something so weird that you had to find out if any of your friends had seen it. Well, this is one of those films, except it was made in 2017 and I saw it in 2020 on Netflix.
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
I had added it to my watchlist some time during my obsession with Rami Malek and Mr Robot, knowing he had popped up in several cameo roles in big films over the years, but keen to see him take a lead role before the Oscar train of Bohemian Rhapsody and A-list fame. It is also that kind of film that arthouse cinemas would show during indie festivals or on late night double bills; stepping stones, hopefully, for all concerned to bigger things.
Writer director Sarah Adina Smith hasn’t quite made it yet, so you probably haven’t heard of her. She directed 2 episodes of Hanna, which I liked a lot, and will be talking about on The Wasteland at some point, and a few other bits of TV, but that’s about it. Judged on this oddity there is a good deal of vision and talent going on – but not yet an eye for total coherence.
Buster doesn’t know what it is, and neither do the critics, listing it as a mystery, a drama, a thriller, a sci-fi and a crime film, which… ok, yes, it has elements of all those, but isn’t really any of them, also. The titular character played by Malek is an ethereal enigma trapped in his own weird existence, and through a series of out of time and out of sequence flashbacks we come to understand his journey and descent into madness, after encountering a down at heel salesman with a big conspiracy theory to pedal, called The Inversion.
It remains shrouded in ambiguity and strangeness for most of the modest, but not off-putting, 96 minute running time, as Malek grows a beard, loses a beard and grows a beard again. Even when all is said and done, it takes a minute to put it all together and figure out what the point of it was. As something curious to let wash over you, I have to say I kinda liked it. Malek was as committed and interesting to watch as he always is, and I was just happy that films like this can still get made.
Ultimately, possibly a short film idea stretched too thin into a feature, which is an all too familiar phenomenon for new directors. But, an idea interesting and original enough to earn the right to be thought of as “showing potential”. If Smith ever does make it as big as say Jim Jarmusch or Kelly Reichardt then the arthouse geeks like me will be looking back on this with great interest. You just wonder how many people will see it at all, now the days of post midnight movies on a set channel are pretty much over?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
An absolute snooze
Here comes yet another superhero film. Ending Marvel’s year that has included the charming Big Hero 6, the overstuffed Avengers: Age of Ultron and the surprisingly excellent Ant-Man, the Fox produced Fantastic Four reboot has a tough job trying to get audiences to forget the horror that came before it.
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
It’s been a tough ride for the quartet of heroes, but does director Josh Trank’s modern day reimagining of Marvel’s first team do enough to change perceptions?
Not by a long shot. Despite some excellent special effects, this yawnfest of a film that was plagued by rumours of constant behind-the-scenes tension and last-minute editing doesn’t have an ounce of originality in its short 100 minute running time.
Miles Teller (Insurgent), Kate Mara (Transcendence), Michael B. Jordan (Chronicle) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) take on the roles of Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm respectively and are fine, if lacking in any real chemistry.
Fantastic Four is above all, an origins story as the four young adults try to crack interdimensional travel. Naturally, things don’t go quite to plan and they, alongside fellow colleague Victor Von Doom end up with an unusual set of powers – with Doom becoming the main antagonist.
Unfortunately, the plot, devised by no less than three writers is a complete bore. There is hardly anything of interest throughout the entire film as Trank pushes his cast from one underwhelming set piece to another.
When things do get tense, it’s only for a five minute scene involving Doom breaking out of a research facility. This is when we get to see what Fantastic Four could’ve been, a dark and brooding film with a disturbing villain at its core.
However, it seems this has been pushed back to make way for an unusually flat sense of humour and an uninteresting origins story. Marvel films live and die on their comedic elements and unfortunately Fantastic Four is as poor as they come.
Nevertheless, the film’s special effects are on the whole, very good. The other dimension looks fantastic and The Thing in particular is rendered using excellent motion capture animation.
An underwhelming climax wraps up a bitterly disappointing outing for the four heroes. Most superhero films end with a spectacular showdown of good versus evil but Fantastic Four has none of this. The ending is clichéd, short and has no real payoff.
Overall, expectations were already low for this reboot and despite director Josh Trank’s obvious talent for direction, this talent is nowhere to be found in Fantastic Four.
A cast that doesn’t gel together, a poor soundtrack and a lack of tonal balance ensures it will rest alongside X-Men Origins: Wolverine as proof that Marvel Studios needs the rights to all of its heroes returning to it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/08/09/an-absolute-snooze-fantastic-four-review/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 14, 2019 (Updated May 14, 2019)
A truly incredible end to the MCU Infinity Saga
SPOLIER FREE REVIEW
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
Avengers: Endgame is finally here after the shocking events of Infinity War.
First and foremost, a huge amount of respect is owed to the Russo brothers for managing to juggle so many characters across these two films (and Civil War) to a hugely satisfying degree.
But with a smaller cast to manage this time around, this is a film that is able to focus more on the original six Avengers from 2012.
The majority of the film is quite dialogue heavy, as the film focuses on a fun time travel plot, that takes us through a nostalgia filled trip through some of the past MCU films, filled with cameos galore.
The usual mix of thrilling set pieces, emotional beats (that scene set in 1970?), and comedy land just as well as they always have done, with Paul Rudd and Chris Hemsworth delivering most of the humour.
Robert Downey Jr and Scarlett Johansson shine as Tony Stark and Black Widow, as they always do, and I also enjoyed the amount of time they spent with characters like Hawkeye and Nebula, characters who would usually be considered secondary.
A concern I had going in was that they might use the recently added Captain Marvel, but thankfully isn't the case. She is used sparingly, and therefore effectively.
The only real gripe I have with Endgame, is that Thanos is forced more into a backseat role, after his incredible character arc throughout Infinity War, but is understandable, as mentioned above, this film is all about the original 6, and that's where the main focus lies. Saying that though, I did feel pretty unsatisfied with how they concluded the story arc for Black Widow...
As the movie approaches the inevitable big showdown, the ensuing battle is nothing short of thrilling, a pure scene of unobstructed comic book joy, that will have any Marvel fan trying not to shout at the screen.
All in all, it's a phenomenal ending to this chapter of the MCU, and I can't wait for what comes next (especially now that Marvel Studios have the Fox properties back)
Vera Brittain and the First World War: The Story of Testament of Youth
Book
Vera Brittain and the First World War tells the remarkable story of the author behind Testament of...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2020
The more films I see by James Mangold, the more I like him.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Ford v Ferrari (or Le Mans '66 as it's titled in the UK) is an outstanding movie in every way.
Based on a true story, FvF follows car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale) after they are commissioned by Ford to create a new race car capable of beating the notorious Ferrari team during the Le Mans endurance race in France.
I'm not really into racing - I'm not a big sports guy full stop - but this film balances the amount of racing action and heartfelt and frequently humourous drama perfectly.
Both Matt Damon and Christian Bale just bought everything they have to this, and straight up deserved Oscars - I would actually go as far as saying this is arguably Bales' best performance to date.
The supporting cast are fantastic as well, especially Caitriona Balfe as the wife of Ken Miles, Mollie. The chemistry between her and Bales' character is believable and sweet.
I also enjoyed Josh Lucas as smarmy Ford executive Leo Beebe, and detested his character with a passion. And of course Jon Bernthal - I'm yet to see him in anything where he is less than great.
The story is inspiring to say the least, and the screenplay is clever in the way that it focuses on the every day character like Ken Miles, has you rooting for him against the suits, people who put money and profit in front of knowledge. It's a relatable feeling.
As I mentioned, I'm not a big sports guy, so taking this into account, the racing scenes (of which there are a fair few) were nothing short of thrilling. They're really well shot, with seamless special effects, and full of tension. In fact, every inch of Ford v Ferrari feels like it's had so much love, attention, and detail poured into it. It's an all round great experience.
I haven't a single bad word to say about Ford v Ferrari, it's spectacular, full of soul, and easily one of the best films of 2019.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Early Man (2018) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018 (Updated Feb 8, 2018)
One Million Years F.C.
Another movie from the people who made Wallace and Gromit and Shaun the Sheep, and if you're familiar with either of those you will know that expectations will be high: Aardman are the British answer to Pixar or Studio Ghibli. Keeping such sky-high standards must be difficult, so we must try to be understanding when they fall a little short - as they do here.
A tribe of comedy cavemen with English accents are driven from their lovely valley by a nasty Bronze Age civilisation who variously sound French, Italian, and German. Brightest of the cavemen hits upon a scheme to win the valley back by playing the invaders at their sacred game, i.e. football (or soccer). Cue lots of sports movie cliches/parodies.
Well, obviously, you can't fault the craft that goes into these films, but on this occasion you can't help noticing the slightness of the story and the fact that it's neither as funny nor, crucially, as clever as many of their previous productions. (The fact that the film has a weird Brexit-friendly political subtext may be an issue for some viewers as well.) I love silly accents, absurd jokes and bad puns as much as the next person (probably more, in truth), but the fact that this film doesn't have the same kind of heart or warmth as (for example) your typical Pixar film is very noticeable. Still, not *actually* that bad.
A tribe of comedy cavemen with English accents are driven from their lovely valley by a nasty Bronze Age civilisation who variously sound French, Italian, and German. Brightest of the cavemen hits upon a scheme to win the valley back by playing the invaders at their sacred game, i.e. football (or soccer). Cue lots of sports movie cliches/parodies.
Well, obviously, you can't fault the craft that goes into these films, but on this occasion you can't help noticing the slightness of the story and the fact that it's neither as funny nor, crucially, as clever as many of their previous productions. (The fact that the film has a weird Brexit-friendly political subtext may be an issue for some viewers as well.) I love silly accents, absurd jokes and bad puns as much as the next person (probably more, in truth), but the fact that this film doesn't have the same kind of heart or warmth as (for example) your typical Pixar film is very noticeable. Still, not *actually* that bad.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The BFG (2016) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Fun Family Film
An orphan girl is in for the surprise of her life when she stumbles upon a world of giants and, in the process, makes a best friend.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
You quickly learn in The BFG that all giants are not created equal. You have your bullies, your overeaters, your dumb giants. The Big Friendly Giant is in a class of his own, a character you quickly come to appreciate. He’s smart but humble and is the type of being that would give you the shirt off his back…even if that shirt is eight sizes too large. He makes you care about what ultimately happens to him and his intriguing home world.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
Genre: 7
Entertaining and worthy of a watch, but falls just short of other upper echelon kids films I’ve seen.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 7
Plot: 2
Resolution: 8
Satisfies with a warm, feel-good ending anyone can get behind. Slightly far-fetched, but definitely a good payoff.
Overall: 70
The BFG gives you a lot to entertain you, namely it’s crisp visuals and the beautiful detail amongst the giants and their world. There is a dream world scene that I highly recommend watching in 4K as it’s colors are brilliant and pop off the screen. The pace, and the film as a whole, is far from perfect but it’s worth at least a single watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
Characters: 10
You quickly learn in The BFG that all giants are not created equal. You have your bullies, your overeaters, your dumb giants. The Big Friendly Giant is in a class of his own, a character you quickly come to appreciate. He’s smart but humble and is the type of being that would give you the shirt off his back…even if that shirt is eight sizes too large. He makes you care about what ultimately happens to him and his intriguing home world.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
Genre: 7
Entertaining and worthy of a watch, but falls just short of other upper echelon kids films I’ve seen.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 7
Plot: 2
Resolution: 8
Satisfies with a warm, feel-good ending anyone can get behind. Slightly far-fetched, but definitely a good payoff.
Overall: 70
The BFG gives you a lot to entertain you, namely it’s crisp visuals and the beautiful detail amongst the giants and their world. There is a dream world scene that I highly recommend watching in 4K as it’s colors are brilliant and pop off the screen. The pace, and the film as a whole, is far from perfect but it’s worth at least a single watch.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Dec 28, 2018
Good but falls short
I’d heard mixed things about this, and Netflix made films are hit and miss at best, but this is actually quite good.
It’s an intriguing premise and for the most part it’s executed fairly well. I liked that it focused not only on the present but also how the events first came about, telling the story as it unfolded, even if it doesn’t quite get as far as a real explanation. There are some obvious comparisons with this and A Quiet Place, and rightly so as despite focusing on different senses, you can see the similarities. It’s nice to see Sandra Bullock back in a starring role, and I especially loved the scenes with her and John Malkovich, they added a nice bit of humour to an otherwise serious story.
This is quite a slow film, and I feel that it could maybe have been cut a little shorter to give it a faster pace. I disliked the ending completely as it is far too Hollywood and yet still didn’t show us what exactly was going on. And why did Sandra Bullock have a full face of makeup on during the entire 5 year span of the film?! I think that annoyed me most of all.
It’s not a bad film and with a few tweaks it could have been much better. However if I had to choose between this and A Quiet Place, I’m afraid A Quiet Place would win hands down.
It’s an intriguing premise and for the most part it’s executed fairly well. I liked that it focused not only on the present but also how the events first came about, telling the story as it unfolded, even if it doesn’t quite get as far as a real explanation. There are some obvious comparisons with this and A Quiet Place, and rightly so as despite focusing on different senses, you can see the similarities. It’s nice to see Sandra Bullock back in a starring role, and I especially loved the scenes with her and John Malkovich, they added a nice bit of humour to an otherwise serious story.
This is quite a slow film, and I feel that it could maybe have been cut a little shorter to give it a faster pace. I disliked the ending completely as it is far too Hollywood and yet still didn’t show us what exactly was going on. And why did Sandra Bullock have a full face of makeup on during the entire 5 year span of the film?! I think that annoyed me most of all.
It’s not a bad film and with a few tweaks it could have been much better. However if I had to choose between this and A Quiet Place, I’m afraid A Quiet Place would win hands down.
