Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Adam (2022) in Movies
Oct 25, 2022
About As Middle-Of-The-Road As You Can Get
The DC Extended Universe (DCEU) has been criticized by many (including the BankofMarquis) for being too dark, dour and somber. The powers-that-be at DC clearly have heard that criticism and with their latest installment - BLACK ADAM - they ditched that grim tone.
If only they would have spent time on character and plot development instead of blowing things up and dispatching nameless/faceless henchmen.
Based on a DC Comics character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about - and featuring SOME characters from DC that the BankofMarquis had heard of (o’k, one character, Hawkman), BLACK ADAM stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the titular anti-hero who comes out of hibernation after about 5,000 years to exact vengeance on those who wronged him.
It’s a tricky line to walk when you are working with an anti-hero bent on death and destruction, but it can be done if you bring some humanity and humility to the character and have this anti-hero character go on some sort of journey of discovery along the way.
While this film succeeds for the most part in bringing a lighter tone and some fun to the proceedings, it seems that Director Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan) and the trio of writers that penned this weak script opted to play it safe and didn’t go too dark (at the beginning) or too “Super-Heroey” (if that is a word) at the end, so what you get is a safe, middle-of-the-road entertainment that is “good enough” and (this is damning with faint praise), one of the better offerings in the DCEU.
Let’s start with the Johnson in the titular role. The film (and film-makers) play down Johnson’s inherent charm throughout the film - to the detriment of all. Johnson plays Black Adam with a focus of purpose and a lack of awareness and humor. While this could have been played with great effect neither Johnson nor Director Collet-Serra leans into this enough to make it a strong part of the offering. True, Johnson’s inherent charisma and screen presence shines through no matter how much it is attempted to be tamped down, but the character just comes off as plain vanilla.
Of course, Johnson’s physical form has never looked better and he excels in the action sequences - which are plentiful and full of explosions and destruction (destruction that is never commented on). These scenes overwhelm the story and the plot - and is one of the reasons that this film doesn’t rise above decent. It has lots of blowing things up and SuperHeroes going “smashy-smashy” with no real emotional resonance or consequence to them.
As for the other actors in this film, Aldis Hodge (ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI) is strong as the only DC Character previous known to the BankofMarquis - Hawkman. He is a welcome addition to this universe and it would be great if he showed up in more DCEU films - including adding him to any Justice League films.
Sarah Shahi (PERSON OF INTEREST on TV) is always a welcome sight in a film - and she more than capably fills in as the representative of the filmgoing audience as the human who is wrapped up the proceedings of these SuperHeroes while Mohammed Amer (the TV series RAMY) provides strong comic relief as Shahi’s brother.
Unfortunately, the film felt the need to put in 2 teenage Superheroes (I guess to appeal to their target audience) in the guise of Atom Smasher, Noah Centineo (THE PERFECT DATE) and Cyclone, Quintessa Swindell (the TV Series IN TREATMENT). These are both decent enough - and good looking enough - performers to put on screen, and they both would look good in a CW TV Series like THE FLASH, but their characters are pointless in this film. They are add-ons that don’t really add anything to the events.
And then there is good ol’ former James Bond Pierce Brosnan as Dr. Fate, a character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about before this film, but now am clamoring for a standalone movie for Brosnan and this character. He was the best thing in this move and this veteran actor understood the assignment, bringing humor and gravitas when needed while doling out sage advice - Obi-Wan style - to both Hawkman and Black Adam throughout the film.
All-in-all, a decent time at the theater (the DCEU has certainly done worse), but, in the end, BLACK ADAM is as disposable as Cotton Candy, fun while it lasts, but not anything that will stay with you for any length of time.
Letter Grade: B (the most solid “B” that a film can have).
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If only they would have spent time on character and plot development instead of blowing things up and dispatching nameless/faceless henchmen.
Based on a DC Comics character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about - and featuring SOME characters from DC that the BankofMarquis had heard of (o’k, one character, Hawkman), BLACK ADAM stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as the titular anti-hero who comes out of hibernation after about 5,000 years to exact vengeance on those who wronged him.
It’s a tricky line to walk when you are working with an anti-hero bent on death and destruction, but it can be done if you bring some humanity and humility to the character and have this anti-hero character go on some sort of journey of discovery along the way.
While this film succeeds for the most part in bringing a lighter tone and some fun to the proceedings, it seems that Director Jaume Collet-Serra (Orphan) and the trio of writers that penned this weak script opted to play it safe and didn’t go too dark (at the beginning) or too “Super-Heroey” (if that is a word) at the end, so what you get is a safe, middle-of-the-road entertainment that is “good enough” and (this is damning with faint praise), one of the better offerings in the DCEU.
Let’s start with the Johnson in the titular role. The film (and film-makers) play down Johnson’s inherent charm throughout the film - to the detriment of all. Johnson plays Black Adam with a focus of purpose and a lack of awareness and humor. While this could have been played with great effect neither Johnson nor Director Collet-Serra leans into this enough to make it a strong part of the offering. True, Johnson’s inherent charisma and screen presence shines through no matter how much it is attempted to be tamped down, but the character just comes off as plain vanilla.
Of course, Johnson’s physical form has never looked better and he excels in the action sequences - which are plentiful and full of explosions and destruction (destruction that is never commented on). These scenes overwhelm the story and the plot - and is one of the reasons that this film doesn’t rise above decent. It has lots of blowing things up and SuperHeroes going “smashy-smashy” with no real emotional resonance or consequence to them.
As for the other actors in this film, Aldis Hodge (ONE NIGHT IN MIAMI) is strong as the only DC Character previous known to the BankofMarquis - Hawkman. He is a welcome addition to this universe and it would be great if he showed up in more DCEU films - including adding him to any Justice League films.
Sarah Shahi (PERSON OF INTEREST on TV) is always a welcome sight in a film - and she more than capably fills in as the representative of the filmgoing audience as the human who is wrapped up the proceedings of these SuperHeroes while Mohammed Amer (the TV series RAMY) provides strong comic relief as Shahi’s brother.
Unfortunately, the film felt the need to put in 2 teenage Superheroes (I guess to appeal to their target audience) in the guise of Atom Smasher, Noah Centineo (THE PERFECT DATE) and Cyclone, Quintessa Swindell (the TV Series IN TREATMENT). These are both decent enough - and good looking enough - performers to put on screen, and they both would look good in a CW TV Series like THE FLASH, but their characters are pointless in this film. They are add-ons that don’t really add anything to the events.
And then there is good ol’ former James Bond Pierce Brosnan as Dr. Fate, a character the BankofMarquis knew nothing about before this film, but now am clamoring for a standalone movie for Brosnan and this character. He was the best thing in this move and this veteran actor understood the assignment, bringing humor and gravitas when needed while doling out sage advice - Obi-Wan style - to both Hawkman and Black Adam throughout the film.
All-in-all, a decent time at the theater (the DCEU has certainly done worse), but, in the end, BLACK ADAM is as disposable as Cotton Candy, fun while it lasts, but not anything that will stay with you for any length of time.
Letter Grade: B (the most solid “B” that a film can have).
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Ambulance (2022) in Movies
Apr 18, 2022
Repetitive drone camera work (2 more)
Cringey humor and dialogue
An outdated and juvenile screenplay
Ambulance Review: Action At Its Dumbest And Gaudiest
Ambulance is a remake of a 2005 Danish film of the same name. Michael Bay’s version of the film follows former Marine Will Sharp (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) as he struggles to find a job and support his family; his wife requires an experimental surgery that their health insurance won’t pay for.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Will turns to his estranged yet wealthy adopted brother Danny (Jake Gyllenhaal). Danny wants Will to participate in a bank heist worth $32 million. Will takes the job out of desperation, but when the heist goes sideways the two brothers hijack an ambulance and take a wounded cop along with a paramedic named Cam (Elza Gonzalez) as hostages.
The performances from Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jake Gyllenhall save Ambulance from being nothing more than an explosive, gyrating mess of a film. You don’t necessarily walk out of the theater feeling sympathy for Will, but you understand why the character turns to robbing a bank after serving his country through the heartfelt actions of Abdul-Mateen’s performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal is a memorable psychopath as Danny Sharp. Gyllenhaal has a ton of charisma as the character and can be incredibly likeable at times, but he has a temper that ignites without warning. Gyllenhaal is able to become intense and unhinged whenever Danny loses control of the situation, which is quite often over the course of 136-minutes.
The action thriller is dripping with what has either made you a fan of Michael Bay’s work or made you despise the Los Angeles born filmmaker for the majority of his career. The editing of the film is spastic and frenetic. There doesn’t seem to be a single sequence that lasts longer than eight seconds before cutting to another angle.
There are several references to other Michael Bay films in Ambulance; The Rock, 13 Hours, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. There’s also stuff you’d expect to find in a Michael Bay film like countless explosions and extravagant car wrecks. The film also seems to recycle the rotating camera Bay utilized in Bad Boys to highlight intense conversations between Will and Danny when they’re not confined to being inside the ambulance.
Despite working with a screenwriter whose first screenwriting credit is this film, Ambulance has writing that feels like it was something Bay produced over a decade ago. The dialogue feels extremely outdated and juvenile as characters walk this thin line between cringey humor and being downright sexist or racist. It feels like Bay was trying to feature a strong, independent woman in Ambulance with Cam. She's a competent single woman who is good at her job and doesn’t have to rely on anyone for anything. But the reveal of why she’s cold and remorseless is entirely cliché. The male characters have no real character development either though as their defining quality is that they all want to fight each other any chance they possibly get.
The Will character is also written in a way that is insulting and kind of offensive. So because he served his country he can get away with robbing a bank, shooting a cop, and participating in and driving the getaway vehicle during a massive car chase? He has a wife and daughter and his wife needs “experimental surgery” for an undisclosed illness and we’re supposed to root for this guy? Are we really this dumb?
It couldn’t be a film set in Los Angeles without someone making a reference to how terrible drivers are in LA. The secondary storylines don’t make sense or are just a complete waste of time. That conversation Danny has with his assistant about futbol/soccer and the lawn flamingos was obviously something extremely relevant to the overall story of the film. A cop also tries to ask out a bank teller while the bank is being robbed and literally doesn’t notice. We also have these other massively relevant and not pointless at all story points; bringing a dog to a car chase, Danny joking about walking around with herpes, and performing surgery in the back of an ambulance while stopping the bleeding with a hair clip.
Revoke Michael Bay’s license to utilize drones in his films. Every outside sequence seemed to have the same establishing shot of the camera flying up into the air turning around and zooming back down towards the ground. The camera in this film never stops moving. That combined with the film’s brutal rapid fire editing style will have you wanting to barf long before Danny calls upon the cartel for back up.
Buried deep within Ambulance’s loud, flashy action, sickening editing, overstimulated filming techniques, and a screenplay that seems like it was fished out of a port-a-potty is a somewhat thrilling action film. Jake Gyllenhaal is a cashmere obsessed lunatic that you can’t help but love, but Ambulance is a gaudy and sloppy excuse of an action film otherwise.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Good Boys (2019) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Repetitive. (1 more)
Too similar to other R-rated teen comedies.
Thor Casts Anal Bead Nunchucks
“Bean Bag Boys for life!” In Good Boys, that’s the motto for three 12-year-old best friends that are finding the sixth grade way more profound and coercing than the fifth grade or any other grade before it ever was. Max (Jacob Tremblay) is at the age where girls aren’t so gross and are actually quite arousing, Thor (Brady Noon) is giving up on who he is and what he loves in a bold attempt to try to fit in with kids who he thinks are cool, and Lucas (Keith L. Williams) mostly just loves Magic: The Gathering, treating women with respect, and being honest.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Two weeks into sixth grade and the boys find themselves invited to their first party, but the catch is that it’s a kissing party and none of them know how to kiss. They use Max’s dad’s drone to spy on high school girls Hannah (Molly Gordon) and Lily (Midori Francis), but the girls end up capturing the drone and holding it for ransom. After a face-to-face meeting goes south, Thor steals Hannah’s purse which includes two capsules of Molly/ecstasy in a kid’s chewy vitamins bottle. Now in possession of illegal drugs after skipping school and using Max’s dad’s drone without permission while he’s out of town, the boys need to figure out a way to get the drone back home without his dad knowing so Max won’t get grounded all so they can still attend the kissing party and become legends of the sixth grade.
Good Boys is co-written and co-directed (only Stupnitsky received credit) by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (writers of Year One and Bad Teacher). The film is produced by Seth Green’s Point Grey Pictures and Good Universe (both Neighbors films, The Disaster Artist, Long Shot). This is all worth mentioning to get an idea of what you’re diving into if you plan on seeing this film. The R-rated comedy attempts to capture what Superbad did for teenagers over a decade ago, but replaces the teenage element with tweens. Whether they’re successful or not is entirely up to you.
There are some decent laugh-out-loud moments in Good Boys, but their long-lasting effect is short-lived because Stupnitsky and Eisenberg decided to repeat those laugh out loud moments over and over again to the point of annoyance. The main laughs of the film come from the boys trying to talk about adult things they don’t fully understand (cum pronounced as koom, a sex doll being a CPR dummy, a nymphomaniac is someone who likes to have sex at sea and on land, etc), thinking sex toys are weapons, and still not being able to get past the child proof lid on a vitamin bottle. These are all funny at first, but all the gags in the film fall under the same handful of categories and essentially feel like Stupnitsky and Eisenberg didn’t have enough creativity in the script writing process to think outside a smattering of raunch.
The typo’d “porb” sequence where the boys attempt to look up how to kiss on the internet, the crossing the busy highway on the way to the mall sequence, and Lucas being so adamant about a woman’s consent are more humorous elements because they’re not as overplayed into the ground; even the opening where Max is on the verge of masturbation seems like a cheap knock off of what Not Another Teen Movie did in its opening sequence nearly 20 years ago. In comparison, Olivia Wilde’s Booksmart from earlier this year was labeled as a female version of Superbad. The Superbad influence is there, but Booksmart adds a refreshing female perspective and explores what the future means for the main characters to a more satisfying extent.
Growing up and what that means to a 12-year-old is explored in Good Boys, but it seems awkward. You’re on the verge of becoming a teenager, which shouldn’t mean all that much for you other than attending a new school. Lucas’ parents are in the middle of a divorce and Thor is trying to be something he isn’t just for his reputation. The characters learn something over the course of the film because of this, but the entire maturing angle doesn’t feel right. Part of it is meant to be ridiculous, especially after Lucas says something like, “I’ve grown up a lot in the past two hours,” and it’s cool that the film goes out of its way to tell the audience to never be ashamed of what you love, but it all feels sloppy and thrown together at the last minute.
This is the first R-rated film to ever have a rating that includes, “all involving tweens,” and this could be seen as the Superbad of this generation, but Good Boys simply doesn’t differentiate itself from the high school and college R-rated comedies that came before it to be memorable or enjoyable. It will likely be a crowd pleaser anyway since the theater I was in was full of laughs from the general public, but its charm is ruined so early on and that’s a painful thing to say when your film is only 90 minutes long. Good Boys may be outrageous and funny at times, but its generic formula destroys what little entertainment value it potentially had.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Terminator Salvation (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
In the year 2018, humans are resisting the machines Skynet created called terminators. John Connor is the man who is destined to lead the resistance. Everything John Connor knows is turned inside out when he comes across Marcus Wright. Marcus was put to death by lethal injection in 2003 for killing his brother and two cops yet here he stands today. When an all out assualt by John's superiors is declared on Skynet, John finds out that Kyle Reese (the man who would eventually become his father) has been captured and will be caught in the blast, he knows his only choice is to join forces with Marcus, rescue the human prisoners, and bring Skynet down.
Christian Bale may have been the biggest disappointment in this film. After everyone heard the sound clip of him blowing up on set at a cinematographer, everybody kind of wondered if Bale's success was getting to his head. Well, it just might have. That clip seemed to run through my mind an awful lot throughout the duration of the film. My biggest complaint was that John Connor yelled the majority of the time, even when there was no reason to. When he did talk normally, he used his Batman voice. It just didn't seem to fit since Bale is more than capable of altering his accent (Harsh Times, Rescue Dawn, The Prestige). It's an issue that was bound to come up eventually, but just didn't really click until now.
The other weak link of the film had to be the dialogue. It is incredibly cheesy at times. At the beginning of the film, one of John Connor's superiors yells, "You tell those men to respond, even if they're dead!" It just seemed to be over the top more often than not. While the dialogue was a bit on the atrocious side, the story did have one interesting element going for it. The entire film revolves around this element and is really the only new factor brought in to the Terminator franchise. While the film had its low points, I kept thinking that the film at least had this going for it. Then the ending rolled around and just completely dropped the ball.
With all the negative components of the film, there are still quite a few pieces of the puzzle that are worth mentioning. The action scenes are beyond superb. The camera always seems to be in the right spot at the right time and it isn't too close, which is a definite plus. It seems to be too close during action sequences and fighting scenes in most films these days and most of the action gets lost in the shuffle (Transformers is a good example). Being able to see everything without wondering what happened to this character or that character is a nice change. Something that should definitely happen more often. The entire scene with The Harvester is pretty phenomenal. There are also quite a few throwbacks to the first two films of the franchise. "Come with me if you want to live," and, "I'll be back," are both used in the film, Kyle Reese uses his signature weapon, a sawn off shotgun, Marcus Wright knocks the windshield out of the wrecking truck in a similar fashion the T-1000 did with the diesel in T2, John Connor cocking a gun and firing at a T-800 while being wounded much like Sarah Connor did with the T-1000 while being wounded in T2, and I'm sure quite a few more that I missed.
Sam Worthington should be getting all the attention Christian Bale is for this film. He actually makes you care about Marcus Wright despite what he's done in the past. The way he portrays his emotions and how he's done these horrible things yet is a decent guy deep down inside just makes you want to root for him. Anton Yelchin also deserves a mention. His version of Kyle Reese is pretty much spot on with how you'd imagine a younger version of Kyle Reese to act. His mannerisms, the way he talks, everything. He nailed it.
The sound was also spectacular. Sounds of huge terminators echoed off the walls and made the ground shake, helicoptor blades seemed to chop through the air in violent strokes, motorcycles screeched from one side of the theater to the other to sound like they were going right by you, and you could feel the area around you rumble whenever there was a huge explosion. The sound is definitely a huge aspect of an action film and it really delivered here.
Terminator: Salvation is worth seeing, but being a fan of the franchise and having high expectations may leave you walking away in disappointment. The film doesn't really elaborate on the war between humans and machines or really add anything to the franchise, when all is said and done. If you can somehow remember the first two films yet not compare this sequel with them while ignoring plot holes, Christian Bale's over the top performance, and cheesy dialogue, then you may be able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation to its full extent. But if you're looking for a great action film that fails to expand the Terminator mythos in any way, shape, or form, then this film delivers.
Christian Bale may have been the biggest disappointment in this film. After everyone heard the sound clip of him blowing up on set at a cinematographer, everybody kind of wondered if Bale's success was getting to his head. Well, it just might have. That clip seemed to run through my mind an awful lot throughout the duration of the film. My biggest complaint was that John Connor yelled the majority of the time, even when there was no reason to. When he did talk normally, he used his Batman voice. It just didn't seem to fit since Bale is more than capable of altering his accent (Harsh Times, Rescue Dawn, The Prestige). It's an issue that was bound to come up eventually, but just didn't really click until now.
The other weak link of the film had to be the dialogue. It is incredibly cheesy at times. At the beginning of the film, one of John Connor's superiors yells, "You tell those men to respond, even if they're dead!" It just seemed to be over the top more often than not. While the dialogue was a bit on the atrocious side, the story did have one interesting element going for it. The entire film revolves around this element and is really the only new factor brought in to the Terminator franchise. While the film had its low points, I kept thinking that the film at least had this going for it. Then the ending rolled around and just completely dropped the ball.
With all the negative components of the film, there are still quite a few pieces of the puzzle that are worth mentioning. The action scenes are beyond superb. The camera always seems to be in the right spot at the right time and it isn't too close, which is a definite plus. It seems to be too close during action sequences and fighting scenes in most films these days and most of the action gets lost in the shuffle (Transformers is a good example). Being able to see everything without wondering what happened to this character or that character is a nice change. Something that should definitely happen more often. The entire scene with The Harvester is pretty phenomenal. There are also quite a few throwbacks to the first two films of the franchise. "Come with me if you want to live," and, "I'll be back," are both used in the film, Kyle Reese uses his signature weapon, a sawn off shotgun, Marcus Wright knocks the windshield out of the wrecking truck in a similar fashion the T-1000 did with the diesel in T2, John Connor cocking a gun and firing at a T-800 while being wounded much like Sarah Connor did with the T-1000 while being wounded in T2, and I'm sure quite a few more that I missed.
Sam Worthington should be getting all the attention Christian Bale is for this film. He actually makes you care about Marcus Wright despite what he's done in the past. The way he portrays his emotions and how he's done these horrible things yet is a decent guy deep down inside just makes you want to root for him. Anton Yelchin also deserves a mention. His version of Kyle Reese is pretty much spot on with how you'd imagine a younger version of Kyle Reese to act. His mannerisms, the way he talks, everything. He nailed it.
The sound was also spectacular. Sounds of huge terminators echoed off the walls and made the ground shake, helicoptor blades seemed to chop through the air in violent strokes, motorcycles screeched from one side of the theater to the other to sound like they were going right by you, and you could feel the area around you rumble whenever there was a huge explosion. The sound is definitely a huge aspect of an action film and it really delivered here.
Terminator: Salvation is worth seeing, but being a fan of the franchise and having high expectations may leave you walking away in disappointment. The film doesn't really elaborate on the war between humans and machines or really add anything to the franchise, when all is said and done. If you can somehow remember the first two films yet not compare this sequel with them while ignoring plot holes, Christian Bale's over the top performance, and cheesy dialogue, then you may be able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation to its full extent. But if you're looking for a great action film that fails to expand the Terminator mythos in any way, shape, or form, then this film delivers.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Alice in Wonderland (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
13 years have passed since Alice first visited Wonderland. She was just a little girl back then. A mad, little girl plagued by a nightmare. Now, almost 20, Alice finds herself thrust headfirst into adulthood yet continues to have the same dream for as long as she can remember. On the verge of being thrown into a marriage she's unsure of, Alice finds herself easily distracted by the simplest things. What would it be like to fly? What if women wore trousers and men wore dresses? Or the fact that wearing a corset is similar to wearing a codfish on your head. The White Rabbit eventually distracts Alice long enough to lead her back down the rabbit hole for a return visit to Wonderland, but Alice is still under the impression that it's all a dream and has no recollection of her first trip there. Since Alice's first visit, however, the Red Queen used the Jabberwocky to relinquish the crown from her sister, the White Queen, and now reigns supreme as the queen of Wonderland. As the creatures of Wonderland debate whether this Alice is the "right Alice" that is destined to kill the Jabberwocky and end the Red Queen's reign, Alice struggles with trying to wake up from this very realistic dream.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
As a huge fan of Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, I was seriously looking forward to this. The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, whether you love it or hate it, has resulted in some fairly creative and successful works. At this point in his career, it's fairly easy to spot something that Tim Burton has done. Like most directors, he has a specific style and Burton's seems to revolve around things that are dark, grisly, and bizarre all rolled into one. So how would Burton's wonderfully grotesque style mesh with Lewis Carroll's delightfully imaginative Alice and her trip to Wonderland? To be blunt, beautifully.
The way Burton went about the subject matter is probably the best way to go. It's an original tale with characters that are already well-established and are admired by a mass audience. That thin line often tread in situations like this between homage and plagiarism isn't quite so thin anymore and mainly follows the homage path. Burton's style also sheds new light on Wonderland or casts a larger shadow on it depending on how you look at it. Beheadings are common, the monsters like the Bandersnatch and the Jabberwocky are gruesome, and the Dormouse has a thing about stabbing creatures in the eye. It's like if Lewis Carroll's vision met a bizarro, cracked out, Grimm's Fairy Tale version of itself.
The bizarre thing is that the secondary characters seem to be more interesting than the primary ones. I found myself drawn to characters like the Dodo Bird, the White Rabbit, the March Hare, the Cheshire Cat, the Executioner, the Red Queen's knights, and the Jabberwocky more than say Alice or the White Queen. That could be due to the fact that I'm drawn to the peculiar and I'm also an aficionado of the ridiculous. However, some characters seemed to be lacking interest (The White Queen) or enthusiasm (Alice) while secondary characters would fill that gap, so it seemed to balance out in the end.
I loved nearly everything about the film ranging from the Red Queen's outlandish reign to Johnny Depp's portrayal of The Mad Hatter to Tim Burton's version of Wonderland itself. Even Crispin Glover's role as the Knave of Hearts was exceptional. There are a few things about the film that didn't sit well with me or that seemed questionable. The addition of Bayard the Bloodhound being one of them. The addition isn't necessarily bad as the character gains sympathy from the audience rather effortlessly, but the character just didn't seem essential to the story like the other characters were. Maybe it's because it's a character Lewis Carroll didn't create. It wound up being something that wasn't good or bad, but leaves you scratching your head a bit. Alice rode Bayard across Wonderland. If you were going to introduce a character into an oddball world, wouldn't something more odd be the answer? Something like an ostrich or a roadrunner? What didn't sit well with me about the film can be summed up with one four syllable word; futterwhacken. What the hell was that? It was like if Regan from The Exorcist decided to start river dancing during a rather serious seizure. The concept wasn't a bad one, but its execution should have been something completely different.
I'm not sure if it was just the theater I was in or what, but it was hard to understand the characters at times. The Mad Hatter and the tea party scene, especially. Every other character was perfectly audible, the music was booming, and the battle scenes were exceptionally loud. The Mad Hatter's mumbling and the March Hare's ramblings are just hard to understand, which is unfortunate as they're two of the things you'll want to hear the most.
Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is frame-for-frame Burton's ghastly version of the tale everyone knows and loves. While his particular vision may appear to not be for everyone on the surface, if you're a fan of Burton's previous work, Johnny Depp, the original Alice in Wonderland, or even all three, then it's safe to say you're more than likely going to love this adaptation.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 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
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
I can’t claim to know much about musicals. I don’t actively avoid them, but I don’t go out of my way to see them either. The few that I have seen and liked don’t seem to sit well with the musical theater crowd either. For instance, recently in conversation my defense of Russell Crowe as Javert in the latest adaptation of Les Misérables was shot down in a matter of seconds. My wife, with some frequency, reminds me that my (until now) secret admiration of Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd is something that should never be declared in a public forum. For me, one of the best achievements in musical film will always be South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut; and though there is a general positivity about it, I’ve never seen it taken all that seriously as a contemporary musical (it was certainly a hell of a lot more memorable than 2003’s Best Picture winner, Chicago). So, if you haven’t already decided my opinion will be moot and stopped reading, I will, with the limited appreciation I have for this genre, give The Greatest Showman the fairest shake I can.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
At a surprisingly short hour and forty-five minutes, this high-concept imagining of the meteoric rise of P.T. Barnum (Hugh Jackman), from the impoverished son of a tailor to one of the biggest names in the history of entertainment, should absolutely fly by. Tragically, it doesn’t. Beginning with an irresponsibly rushed first act that condenses decades of backstory into a few minutes, it dramatically stops dead between its second and third acts as we’re subjected to three songs in a row that not all that subtly beat us over the head with the inevitably that our leads are going to have to face some predictable, life-changing conflict before the big finale. Showman also suffers from the delusion that period pieces will be more engaging and relatable with a modern-inspired soundtrack, à la Baz Luhrmann’s misguided attempt at The Great Gatsby. The idea being that the music of the time, though antiquated to us now, would have sounded modern to people then, so why not put modern music, whether original or sourced, over period images in an attempt to bridge the gap between their world and ours? It’s a concept that might sound great on paper, but as Luhrmann already proved, the final results don’t so much complement each other as they expose each other’s weaknesses.
Its major flaw though, and why The Greatest Showman fails to be a great anything, is the insistence on force-feeding moments of attempted catharsis every 15-20 minutes, having earned almost none of them. A great many of the numbers are presented as such grand, climactic set pieces that they don’t feel as though they are working to serve a cohesive, larger whole. We are inundated with a blur of crescendo after crescendo and left little time to reflect on what we have just seen and heard before the film clumsily bounds off to the next song-and-dance laden plot point; and if you asked me to name any of the individual tunes now three days later, I’d be hard-pressed to do so. It’s an odd juxtaposition, and one I’ve very rarely experienced, wanting so badly for a film to end and at the same time wishing it had been given more time to fully realize its scope. Keep your ears open as well for an ill-advised line in which Barnum proudly compares himself to Napoleon. Isn’t Barnum supposed to be the “hero” of this piece, someone we are supposed to identify with and for whom we want to find success? Somebody please provide Showman’s writers a history lesson that didn’t just come off a Wikipedia page (for Barnum and Napoleon’s sakes).
With any negative criticism, I do like to try and go out on something positive, and if I have to concede anything to this movie, it’s that it finds its footing, albeit temporarily, while addressing issues of equality. Showman shines in the few moments where the supporting players portraying Barnum’s “oddities”, Keala Settle as Lettie Lutz in particular, are given the opportunity to stand toe-to-toe with the leads and, in many of these scenes, they rise above even the likes of Hugh Jackman. Another member of the cast who merits a little bit of praise (and I reserve the right to retract this at any time of my choosing, more than likely with whatever juvenile comedy he’ll be seen in next) is Zac Efron. Exposure to the likes of Nicole Kidman and John Cusack in 2012’s sadly overlooked The Paperboy, may finally be yielding results as he is the only lead who leaves an impression. Though his journey as a high society playwright begrudgingly brought into Barnum’s world definitely leans heavily on the saccharine side, it does provide a break of plausibility in amongst the unbridled chaos of the rest of the picture. I wouldn’t doubt that there is a much better movie that could have been made from expanding into its own feature the subplot of his character bucking the expectations of his status to fall in love with a circus performer.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Love, Simon (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Time to Exhale.
I saw this as a Cineworld “Secret Unlimited Screening” event (for non-UK readers, Cineworld is one of the main movie-theater chains), so went in – like the majority of the audience I suspect – predicting early sight of Lara Croft in skin tight shorts! This was a bit different! A secret screening is an interesting concept, and really tests the metal of a film in engaging its audience early. This one failed to some degree, with seven people (I was counting) walking out in the first 10 minutes. (To be fair on those seven, the film’s first 20 minutes are rather laborious; and to be fair on the film, this was a pretty full auditorium so as a percentage drop out it was low).
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Teen heartthrob Nick Robinson (the older brother from “Jurassic World“) plays the eponymous hero who has a well-buried secret: he’s gay. Growing up in Pleasantville (I almost expected someone to yell “Cat!” and the fire brigade turn up) he feels unable to come out to either his high-school friends or his loving family (“Apple pie cooling on the window-sill anyone?”). But striking up an email relationship with another closeted male from the same high school – nicknamed “Blue” – allows him to explore his feelings about his sexuality and fall in love all at the same time. But neither coming out or love run terribly smoothly for Simon…
Happy families. From left, Nick Robinson, Talitha Bateman, Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel.
I am forty years adrift from being able to directly relate to the stresses and strains of modern high-school life (though I AM still 17 on the inside people!) But even to me, this film doesn’t feel like it should be set in the present day. While it needs to be for its tweeting and blogging story-line, surely there are few backwaters in either America or Western Europe where gay people have to stay so silent? An 80’s or early 90’s setting would, I think, have worked so much better. (Ironically, its not his gay-ness or otherwise that his friends get upset by, but something far more fundamental in the human condition).
Definitely set in the present day.
That aside, this is a sweet and ultimately quite engaging film that I’m sure will be a big hit with a teenage audience. While for me it didn’t come close to ticking all of the coming-of-age boxes that the inestimable “Lady Bird” did, it does cover old ground in a new and refreshing way, and I’m sure it WILL be very helpful for many gay people in getting the courage to come out. Times are different today, but I still can imagine few things requiring more bravery than declaring you are gay to your parents and closest friends (even though, deep down, they surely already suspect).
So, it’s sweet, but also for me (although far from its target audience) rather flat. As a comedy drama, the moments of comedy are few and far between, with only one or two of the lines making me chuckle rather than smile. A quiet auditorium is not a good sign for a film with “Comedy” in its imdb description. It does however occasionally break through with something memorable: a full on college “La La Land” scene (“Not that gay” – LoL) is a case in point. And all of the scenes featuring comedy actress Natasha Rothwell as drama teacher Ms Allbright add much needed energy and humour to the film.
Someone should tell him… regardless of gender preference, sex is never going to work like this.
Of the teen actors, Robinson is fine but it is Katherine Langford as Simon’s friend Leah who stood out for me. Talitha Eliana Bateman (“The 5th Wave“; looking a whole lot younger than her 16 years!) is also impressive as Simon’s culinary sister Nora. Simon’s parents are played by Jennifer Garner (“Dallas Buyers Club“) and Josh Duhamel (a new one on me… he’s been in the “Transformers” films apparently).
Simon says walk this way. From left, Jorge Lendeborg Jr., Nich Robinson, Alexandra Shipp and Katherine Langford.
The screenplay is by movie virgins Elizabeth Berger and Isaac Aptaker, and is a slightly patchy affair. There are scenes that worked well (a cringe inducing sports stadium scene for example) but other times where it seems to be trying too hard for T-shirt captions…. a line from Ethan (Clark Moore) about hate crime was a “Ye-what?” moment.
Some of the characters really don’t quite work either: Tony Hale (so memorable as the useless PA in “Veep”) plays almost a school-ified version of Stephen Stucker’s Johnny from “Airplane”. Perhaps that would work as some sort of whacky hall monitor guy… but it transpires that he is the headmaster. No, I don’t think so.
A bit OTT. Veep’s Tony Hale as the principal with a surfeit of bonhomie.
So, in summary, after a bit of a bumpy start, its a pleasant watch that culminates in a feel-good ending. Feel good, that is, providing you have liberal views: I can’t see it pleasing many Trump supporters. I also can’t see it getting a cinema release in Gambia or Nigeria, though God only knows they could use one. If I could give half stars I would give this one an extra half as I applaud both the theme its trying to promote and for bringing something fresh to the screen…
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Ethan Hawke (2 more)
Madeleine McGraw
Leaves much of the horror to the audience's imagination
Writing is a bit silly at times (1 more)
Teases more story elements and horror than it reveals
A Juvenile Curtain Call of Death
Somewhere in North Denver in 1978, The Black Phone sees Finney (Mason Thames) and his sister Gwen (Madeleine McGraw) attempting to survive constant bullying at school and the abuse of an alcoholic father (played by Jeremy Davies). The missing kids in town are said to be a result of The Grabber (Ethan Hawke); a man who drives around in a black van with black balloons kidnapping and eventually killing kids. When Finney is suddenly taken by The Grabber, he’s told that the black phone in his room doesn’t work but then the phone rings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.
Based on the short story of the same name by Joe Hill, The Black Phone is directed by Scott Derrickson (Doctor Strange, Sinister) and written by Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (the two have been collaborating together on everything Derrickson has done since Sinister). What’s interesting is The Black Phone has mastered the art of subtlety and teasing its audience. The Grabber is introduced in the film similar to the shark in Jaws. You only see glimpses of him for the first third of the film. The black van will come into frame and the screen will immediately fade to black. The Grabber will park and get out of his van to abduct a kid, but he’ll purposely be out of focus. The Grabber lurks in the background like a shark waiting for that first drop of blood, which is essentially when Finney walks by alone.
The unfortunate aspect is that it feels like something is missing. The supernatural horror film keeps building and building that when the finale rolls around it feels like it isn’t a big enough payoff. Most of the violence and kills aren’t seen since the film deals with child and teenager victims. The audience is shown the end result instead; the wounds sustained by the victims that call Finney, The Grabber’s game of Naughty Boy, and Gwen being whipped with a belt by her father (you see him holding the belt and her crying, but we never see the contact). There’s artistry to leaving some things to the viewer’s imagination. In a time where horror has evolved into showing its audience every gruesome detail it’s become a forgotten art. It could also be a personal preference, but it feels like The Black Phone teases more than it reveals.
The writing of the film is as genius as it is ridiculous. Most of it is very good, especially with what Finney is building up to in the basement. The unveiling of the location of The Grabber’s house is silly though, especially since an entire police squad didn’t make the connection. Finney and Gwen’s mom is never seen since she’s passed during the events of the film, but she is mentioned. She apparently heard things and seen things that ended up in a fatal situation for her. Gwen has visions of The Grabber while she sleeps and Finney is able to receive phone calls from The Grabber’s victims because of the relation to their mom. This leads to one of the greatest lines in the film when Finney asks why no one has ever called before. “The phone rang, but no one heard it.”
Ethan Hawke’s performance is so mesmerizing that you wish he had more screen time. Even his motive behind what he intends to do with his victims is hinted at, but not really clarified. With all of the bodies piling up and the amount of phone calls Finney receives, the end result is always the same. The Grabber is slightly flamboyant in his demeanor and particular about how everything should play out. His mask and the fact that it resembles the comedy and tragedy masks that tend to symbolize the theater hint at this all being a performance for him. Things not going his way is like someone fumbling over their lines; it’s unforgivable.
Madeleine McGraw is not so secretly the best part of the film. Her career before The Black Phone has mostly been in voice acting (Cars 3, Toy Story 4, The Mitchells vs The Machines) and playing younger versions of other characters (Pacific Rim: Uprising, Ant-Man and the Wasp). McGraw gets a fair amount of screen time here and Gwen is an incredibly resourceful character and arguably the film’s biggest asset. McGraw’s performance is genuine as you believe every word she says. She’s hilarious as she has the best lines of dialogue in the film. Her portrayal of sadness and anguish is top notch as well as she has the most powerful and emotional sequence in the film that breaks your heart and only makes you sympathize with both her and Finney.
With supernatural dread lifted from the likes of Stir of Echoes and The Sixth Sense, The Black Phone features a breakthrough performance from Madeleine McGraw while Ethan Hawke’s hauntingly memorable turn as The Grabber is felt in a hair-raising sense; like someone who has unknowingly snuck up behind you and waits in your peripheral for that dramatic reveal. The Black Phone is a solid, pulse racing horror film that packs a punch, but seems like the type of film that simply won’t be as delectable on repeat viewings.