This was a pretty good movie. Better than I expected it to be. The fight scene between Grey and Fisk was pretty nice. I thought it was neither good or bad, at first, until the ending. The ending is what made me give this movie a 10/10 rating, instead of an 8/10 rating. I feel like the ending made a perfect introduction for a second movie.
What Works:
My favorite slasher/ horror movie of all time is Scream and this movie feels like a love-letter to Scream. There are a couple of scenes that are shot in the same manner, especially the opening sequence, but Fear Street puts its own spin on things. That's true of the entire movie. It definitely shows respect and admiration to what came before, but is willing to be it's own movie, which is the best of both worlds.
I didn't know this movie was rated R going in, so I was caught off guard by the amount of blood, which I was very ok with. Most of the kills won't blow your minds, but there are few fun ones, especially near the end when the movie proves that nobody is safe.
One of the best parts of slasher movies is seeing the creative design they create for the killer. Well, Fear Street triples down on that front and gives us three killers on a rampage. They each have their own distinct personality and all get some very fun and brutal moments. Most slasher movies only have 1 killer walking around, but having three makes this movie feel a lot more dangerous.
I really appreciate how smart the core cast of characters are here. They make a lot of really intelligent decisions. They try to get the cops involved, but figure out pretty quickly that the cops are useless, so they take matters into their own hands and make moves to stop the overall threat. And later on, when they recognize the cops won't believe this insane story, they dull it down to make it more believable and get the problem to go away. It's refreshing to watch.
This movie also explores themes of classism, racism, and homophobia. It's not subtle at all, but that's fine. Slasher movies aren't the most subtle of movies. They explore the topics by diving straight on it and sometimes movies need to do that to get their point across.
Finally, the 3rd act showdown takes place in a grocery store. This is a solid setting that I haven't seen used a whole lot in the slasher genre. It gives us some creative sequence and the best kill of the movie.
What Sucks:
The biggest problem with the movie is the main protagonist, Deena (Kiana Madeira). I believe that a protagonist needs to be likable or interesting for our audience to get invested in the. Deena is neither. She's a poor, angsty, and angry high schooler and has a really negative attitude throughout the entire movie. She is also in conflict with her ex-girlfriend, Sam (Olivia Scott Welch). This would be fine, except the movie wants us to be on Deena's side over their conflict when I think Sam is definitely the more sympathetic of the two. I found myself very annoyed with Deena for the first half of the movie and it was tough for me to become invested in her survival.
The other problem is some of the humor doesn't land. The movie tries to reference other horror movies to varying degrees of success and the majority of the comedy failures come from Simon (Fred Hechinger), who is very hit-or-miss as the comic relief.
Verdict
Besides a few character problems, Fear Street Part 1: 1994 is a very fun movie with some solid kills, interesting themes, smart characters, cool killers, and an awesome 3rd act. I can't way to see where this series goes next. Part 1 certainly has got it going on.
7/10: Really Good
First off, great movie ! Not that overdrawn Hollywood stuff. Much more realistic. Really pulled me in and the fighting felt very tense.
As for the story I have to admit I hadn't known it before. Doesn't surprise me one bit though. But it's good to see that those things come to light at last and the soldiers get the recognition they deserve. One of the sad truth of life. Too many things have happened, and are still happening, we don't know about.
Fu**ing politicians always come out on top. Always have been, Always will be.
Yeah, this is an awesome movie. Definitely one of the best of the nineties.
The story revolves around 8 groups of criminals that all are somehow connected to each other. All of them are all involved in either revenge, drugs, money or guns and they use a lot of violence to get to the point they wanna go.
This movie is also incredible funny, anyone remembered that scene where the gang that robbed the marijuana growers was about to ambush the gang that stole their money from them but instead of those guys showing up the gang the marijuana belonged to showed up? With that Greek music that was playing in the background? I couldn't stop laughing the first time i saw that scene.
With this movie Guy Ritchie showed that he had some real talent. And 2 years later he showed everyone that is wasn't a one-time fluke with Snatch.
This movie is also responsible for launching the career of some of the people who worked on it, namely Guy Ritchie, Vinnie Jones and off course Jason Statham.
I can tell you that Game of Thrones is phenomenal, visual beautiful, fantastic, exhilarating and action-packed thrilling rollercoaster that in many ways has not been seen yet in a tv show. I could say that and be absolutely right about it, but unless you have been living under a rock without an internet connection for the past 2 years than no doubt you already heard, seen or read for yourself what a masterpiece the books and/or this tv series is.
Game of Thrones is exactly like the title says: A game for the throne. Played by the people who think its their right to claim, conquer or inherit it. They all have different goals and different ways of getting to that point, but their goal is in essence in one way or another the same for all of them: to be recognized and remembered for their deeds. Off course that is not so weird since everyone in real life at some level thinks like that. But the main characters in Game of Thrones are different, either through noble descent, the power and money they have, intelligence or sheer luck they have become a member of one of the noble houses that rule the countries and can decide the fate and lives of hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of people within the fictional continents of Westeros and Essos.
The story, setting and characters are all taken from a broad range of European history. Most of what we see of the continent Westeros (castles and tournaments) is taken from High Medieval Western Europe from around the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. But the story takes bits and pieces from other time periods as well. For example the wildfire that was used in season 2 in a brilliant strategic move of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister during the Battle of the Blackwater is in fact Byzantine "Greek fire" which was invented and first used in the 7th century during battles between Muslims and Byzantines. This and other historical events, devices and characters based on real people out of history are all as it seems perfectly interwoven into each other into the fictional world of Game of Thrones by the author of the books George R. R. Martin.
For the actors who play the characters i have nothing but utmost respect. The performance they manage to show episode after episode is definitely what makes this tv show so popular. There is one in particular that without a doubt is one of the more popular stars of this tv show: Peter Dinklage who plays the role of "The Imp" Tyrion Lannister. In the 1st season he was portrayed as nothing more than someone who took advantage of his noble status and money to do whatever he wanted. But in season 2 (and hopefully the next seasons too) he transformed despite his disadvantage of being born as a dwarf (who during medieval times and in this fictional world are considered "lesser" humans) into a brilliant military and political strategist and someone who can very good and enjoys as he so very accurately said himself "play the game".
Game of Thrones is without a doubt the hit tv show of this decade. It started out with a story about medieval times, but slowly with every episode we see the world of the Seven Kingdoms transform into a place where mythical creatures exist, magic and dark powers are used as a weapon against enemies and where the dead are once more walking again.... Winter is coming, and i have no doubt it that it will be as spectacular and story-wise phenomenal as we have have seen in the previous seasons.
Let me start this off by saying that this sequel did not feel outside of what we remember.
Blade Runner 2049 maintains the mood and feel of its predecessor. The visuals, the sound... the dystopian future, it's all there.
| FIRST THOUGHT |
I love writing reviews, it comes somewhat naturally to me after watching something that I learn to feel passionate about.
This movie taught me to be passionate.
But... it's really hard for me to express judgment. And I'm going to explain why:
Actually, it's very simple. This was a 3 hours movie. Of these 3 hours, 2 were simply... air. Now, don't get me wrong, that isn't always negative, like in this case. It was refreshing air, but still... it doesn't (at first glance) hold anything on the plot.
Because of this, the viewer (me at least), is left with a lot of questions, the picture doesn't explain itself. Also; as a side note - you most definitely need to watch the first one. The great majority of the runtime is inexplicably useless.
The longer it goes, the longer it begins to add new stuff, and then some, then it seems somehow related to what's actually going on, but right after it deviates the actual story on an ideal from the characters involved, that at a certain point, evaporates. I'm really conflicted about this because it looks to me like the screenwriters and director wanted to leave all of this to theory and the fans.
Why is this confusing? Because it's a very strange mixture of linear narrative and non-linear narrative. One is focussed on one objective, the other starts a bunch of other objectives and then it simply dies. No explanation was given, no closure was given.
And this is aggravated by the fact that it's a 3 hours movie, of which 1 hour of the actual story is spread and mixed amongst 2 hours of absolutely nothing. VISUALLY IMPRESSIVE NOTHING. A VERY INTERESTING BUNCH OF LITERAL VOID.
This is actually the only thing I did not like about the movie. Which, again, if you are like me and enjoy movies that aren't patently explaining themselves, it's not a bad thing. I just feel like it could've been much more interesting if they explained somehow what happened to all the side characters, or just cut them out.
|STORY & ACTORS |
Aside from what I've mentioned before, the more "linear" part of the story is actually not that bad. It's nothing impressive. A part of what I said earlier connects to the fact that this movie constantly keeps juggling between what is real and what is not. Be it by robots, or actual reality that the characters are living. So it came out pretty obvious that the movie would have a twist at some point, somewhere. I will admit that I did not get it until the very end, so, don't be discouraged.
Ryan Gosling was great, also because he as an actor was perfect for his role. Being so that he has this way of being and looking conflicted, and so it portrayed really well on the protagonist.
Harrison Ford had less value to this movie than he did in the last Star Wars.
Jared Leto's character is a mystery to me, but he did a phenomenal job talking random shit.
All of the other actors, Jared Leto included, were there to push the story forward (or to add random bullshit) and that's it. They did a fantastic job, but unfortunately, as mentioned above, at first glance it looks like they don't mean shit.
| CINEMATOGRAPHY |
The movie is visually pleasing, it's bliss for people with OCD. It's perfectly round and at the same time perfectly square. It keeps smooth lines combining great color combinations in the palette, and utilizing great solid colors at the same time.
As I said before it holds perfectly a spot near its predecessor, the mood and feel are almost identical. (Having watched the first one only an hour before going to the theater to watch this one)
I have to say, this one looks A LOT, like A FUCKING GIGAZILLION LOT more gruesome and splatter than the first one. The fighting scenes are brutal, they do not go into dramatic effects, they just are what they should be. A punch in the face, exploding heads and blood.
There is no doubt that this movie looks fucking amazing.
It sounds amazing as well. It has a collection of deep, pure sounds. There is not a lot of music, but when there is it's powerful and present and it makes you wake up and amaze. Same goes for the special audio effects: I have watched it in ATMOS and I have to admit, they did not utilize it at all, except for one scene later in the movie, but the way it goes from absolute silence to seat trembling sensations it's really amazing. The sounds were so powerful I could literally see the movie screen shake and the subwoofer hit made the whole room shake.
I would also like to add that in the Italian version, you can clearly see that they used "incorrect" words grammatically, they used a lot of anglicisms, I guess they've done that to express how language is evolving? It's actually current of our generation, I see a lot of people adapting English words in Italian, so I was very impressed by that.
| FINAL THOUGHT |
I feel like everyone needs to understand, before watching this movie, that you need a time, a mood and a place perfectly fit to sit for a 3 hours movie that it's going to feel like a 6-hour long journey into colors, shapes, and absolute "living" silence.
This is NOT a Marvel movie, there is action, well-done action, but it's not about action. You need to sit, relax and don't think about time, because, trust me, it's going to fuck you.
Please like my comment if you enjoyed my review, it makes me really happy.
Note that all of this is driven by my personal opinion. If you think I wasn't objective in some of the parts of what I've written, you're welcome to make me notice where.
On Twitter, I review the entire world -> @WiseMMO
If you ever needed a lesson in not listening to reviewers and making your own mind up about a movie, this is it. The Suicide Squad is brought to life by David Ayer in this summer blockbuster. It is 2+ hours of hard hitting FUN, with incredible portrayals of comic book favourites. Will Smith IS Deadshot, Margot Robbie IS Harley Quinn, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje IS Killer Croc, Jai Courtney IS Captain Boomerang... and The Joker??? I WANTED MORE!!! Well the biggest compliment I can pay to Jared Leto is that I didn't think about Heath Ledger once, it was a completely different yet interesting portrayal.
In this fun action flick, the bad guys are sent to take down a greater evil. Critics of the big bad in this movie seem to have completely missed the point. The big bad in this movie is merely a plot device, to help us get to see our protagonists form as a team. If anything the real villain of the piece is the one who forms this team of misfits. Amanda Waller is portrayed DIABOLICALLY by the incredible Viola Davis and the part where she turns on and guns down her own employees is SHOCKING . Complaining about the villain in a movie where the protagonists are bad guys is akin to complaining about the villain in Deadpool... THAT'S NOT THE POINT OF THE MOVIE!
This movie leaves you with a thirst for more of these characters, and some shots such as when Will Smith is stood on top of a car and gunning down henchman after henchman after henchman look like they have just been ripped out of a comic book and put on screen by the wonderfully talented David Ayer.
If you are a comic book fan, or a DC movies fan, heck even if you are just an average movie watcher... watch this movie! It is SO MUCH FUN!!!
UPDATE: Just seen the Extended Edition and I really enjoyed the new scenes. This extended version doesn't change the nature of the movie in the way the Ultimate Cut did for BvS but I found it let's the movie breathe a little and solves some of the editing problems people complained about. I still love the theatrical release but my recommendation is to watch the extended version of this movie!
moral of the story, never download untrusted software from internet, and for the love of god, cover your webcam and phone's camera.
Can someone die out of sheer excitement?!?! What an episode!!
I waited months for this, I was so excited! But I guess my expectations were too high... Since sadly enough it turned out to be a bunch of meh... ! It was alright...
My love for this show is embarrassing.
This episode was definitely different! Weird style and storytelling, and it is a little bit confusing. On the other hand, who is that man at the end? Is that Erin's father, I am kinda lost???
While I do think that it is an amazing film that everyone should watch, unfortunately, I think that creators spend too much time focusing on shock value to truly get the right messages across. I have personally been "social media aware" for about 9 months now and have read multiple books on this issue, and they don't portray the dystopian society that this film does. By focusing more on how people can change their habits and by showing that it is possible to live with social media, this film would have much more of an impact.
I actually liked the ending. To me most characters went full circle and had a fitting ending. I understand that some people don't like it and I think that season 08 was rushed to much and not build up enough. But the actual ending felt good to me and fitting with the characters...
- Jon: Doesn't want to be king and has said this since s01 (he's just a bastard) and his (Ned) Stark level of honor has always been what defines him.
- Arya: Since s01 didn't want to be a lady and although I loved her love interest with Gendry I found it fitting for her to leave.
- Bran: Sees and knows all as the 3 eyed raven and has done so much in the series, such a big character in the books and he knew he couldn't be lord because he was going to be king. Do I think they explained it enough in the series? No, that could've been handled beter but still a fitting end for him.
- Jaime dieing with his true love (Cersei) because they belonged together was fitting for me as well. He knows his sister is bad and poisonous but he feels he doesn't deserve a good live with Brienne and will always love his sister. The way HOW they died should've been beter
- Sansa: Queen of the North? Hell yeah, obvious.... The North Remembers...
- Tyrion: Fitting end, he knows things and drinks wine...
-Danny: Since season 1 was obvious to me she wasn't 100% a good person and was capable of horrific things (like crucifieing the slavers without any emotion... Couple that with Dragons and losing all the people she loved and trusted.... Obvious to me she was going to become totally cray cray. So her ending was a proper one to me. They should've perhaps elaborated more on this because can imagine that to some viewer it was a bit sudden and out of the blue....
To me it feels like some people just hate it because the ending was different than what they had in mind or had immagined...
Brilliant and mind-blowing. Reminded me a lot of Donnie Darko.
IF YOU THROW ANOTHER MOON AT ME I’M GONNA LOSE IT
really excited for this :D
[8.2/10] It’s hard to talk about Arrival without spoiling the film. So much of what makes it more than just a well-done first contact story is tied up in its later developments. They recontextualize enough of the prior proceedings that trying to discuss the import or quality of the film without mentioning them is like trying to give someone directions without letting them know the destination.
But its premise is fairly straightforward. Aliens have come to Earth, in twelve ships scattered across the globe. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) a linguist, is brought by the U.S. Military to the ship in Montana, in attempt to help us communicate with the extra-terrestrial presence. With the help of theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), and buffer provided by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker), Banks slowly but surely finds ways to talk to these beings, with the American team alternatively working with and against similar groups in other nations attempting the same.
And then there’s the twist. The birth, death, and tragedy of Louise’s daughter, implied through the grammar of film to have occurred prior to the alien encounter we witness, actually happened afterward. The estranged husband hinted at early on turns out to be Donnelly. And Banks herself, through learning to think like the heptapods, and eventually direct contact with the aliens, becomes unstuck in time. She experiences moments from what we’d consider the past, present, and future, in non-linear splendor, mixing them up like a memory collage.
Despite the narrative trickery employed, the reveal itself isn’t so unfamiliar to those acquainted with the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Watchmen, and even Star Trek: The Next Generation. But what the twist lacks in novelty, it makes up for in thematic resonance. Like those works, Arrival uses the time-dilated nature of its story to comment on processing trauma, the value of one’s experiences and life itself in a chaotic universe, and the potential of the human mind to expand to contemplate greater possibilities.
You’re unlikely to find a film this year with as many intriguing philosophical implications as Arrival. In that, it is akin to The Prestige, as a film with a twist that initially knocks over the viewer with how it changes the reality of what’s been depicted up to that point, but that makes its bones from the implications of that new reality. In both films, what the reveals show about the characters, and say about the value and nature of human life, linger long after the shock of the twist dissipates.
But the force of the movie does kick into high gear after the non-linear way in which Louise begins to experience time is unveiled. It answers the plot-specific mystery that Arrival presents – why did the heptapods come here? They, it turns out, have experienced time in this fashion from the beginning, the thoughts and information able to exist simultaneously in the past and the future. Their journey is to help Earth unify, to serve as a catalyst for cooperation, so that three millennia in the future, humanity will be able to help them. It is an intriguing and clockwork explanation for their presence.
Beyond, however, the on-the-ground (so to speak) plot mechanics of Arrival, what makes it stand out is its exploration of how this change in temporal perspective changes how individuals think, how they value different things in their lives, how they approach and view the world. The film reflects this in interesting ways.
The heptapods’ language is circular, more symmetrical and again, non-linear to reflect their perspective, tying into the motif that learning a language rewires your brain to a certain extent. Louise naming her daughter Hannah, which the episode notes is a palindrome, reflects the way this same symmetry and perspective has filtered down to her. And the film itself often frames Louise symmetrically, using a flat background or one-point perspective to balance the images.
But most notably, that mode of thought changes Louise’s perspective on life writ large, estranges her from eventual husband Donnelly, and motivates her to both marry him and have a child, knowing that each choice will end in pain. The cinch is that for Louise, these decisions do not “end.” They simply are. They exist on the same continuum as all moments, not greater or lesser in priority or order than the others.
And for that, for the gift given to her by the heptapods, she chooses the path that will increase the amount of bliss she enjoys, where she experiences love, where she is enriched. Amy Adams understated performance gives life to this epiphany. Freed from constraints, in philosophy and temporal perspective, of having to fear loss and hardship, she pursues those paths that will make her life more worthwhile, that will give her more moments of happiness and wonder and fulfillment, regardless of any chronological path from joy to sadness.
It’s a laudable message, that applies even to the humble folks who still experience time in a linear fashion. Much of cinema tackles ideas about coping with loss or valuing the good times even in the shadow of the bad. But the device of the scattered timescape of Louise’s life, seen as an accumulation of experiences and not a linear progression, drives that point home in a unique way. Much of Arrival is about broadening perspectives, and the scattered scenes combining what was, what is, and what will be help to cast the same broadening spell on the audience that the heptapods do for Louise.
That’s part of why talking about this film without talking about its twist is so hard. The way Arrival tells its story, the ways those moments are sequenced in the film, is so essential to what the film is trying to say that discussing it apart from that perspective is unavoidably lacking. In a film about altering perspective, there is only so much to say without talking about how it attempts to shift the audience’s own perspective in the process. Arrival uses the alien and unfamiliar to tell a deeply humanistic story, about unity, philosophy, and worth, through one individual who comes to see them all very differently.
Very imaginative and with a very conscious message of what humanity is capable of, interpreting that through different meanings.
Snowpiercer is a film based on a French graphic novel called Le Transperceneige, and in this we follow the story of mankind, who lives aboard a large train, after a serious ecological problem that froze Planet Earth forever. Almost everyone in the world died frozen least the ones who boarded on the train, and past 18 years still travels a worldwide route and according to its inventor, Wilford, an engineer who predicted the fatal events, the train will never stop. If any of the passengers tries to leave, will freeze to death. The train is divided into several sections and social levels which can not mix with each other. In the last car of the train lives the lowest social class that sick of living in extreme poverty, found a plan to try to bring down Wilford's field who lives commanding everything that happens in the first train carriage. The main goal of the rebels is to reach Wilford and end inequality among all human beings.
Despite is unreal story this turns out to be a film with immense significance and to be able to appreciate the importance of the messages it wants to deliver we have to know first of all to analyze the meaning of all the moments that we think are out of place. For what at first sight may be out of context or not seems to make sense (due to the condition of the world and the people of the train) will make much sense anyway if we look beyond what we see.
The main reason why this film manages to be successful it may be the direction of the Korean Bong Joon-ho, who with this film makes his directorial debut in English language. Despite the language and the amount of known actors, we feel anyway the Asian cinema style very present throughout the film and that is very interesting.
The set design is absolutely magnificent! The way the carriages were designed are great, but when it comes to the image of the outside world leaves much to be desired. The CGI is very poor and all the frozen world seems very unreal.
Is full of bizarre characters and moments that break a little of the dark atmosphere in the story and this is great because it gives us spontaneous laughs from time to time, relieving its tension.
Chris Evans surprised me a lot! His performance is very emotional and managed to convince me of their intentions and feelings. His figure in the past few years is very attached to Captain America and during this film he made me forget about that. My favorite character is without a doubt Tilda Swinton's, extremely bizarre and unique, something she knows how to make and very good! The rest of the cast, with names such as John Hurt, Ed Harris, Jamie Bell, Octavia Spencer and Koreans Song Kang-ho and Ko Ah-sung were also good.
I believe this is the kind of film that grows on us after consecutive views. Is biggest problem may be is long duration. Although is quite entertaining for most of the time, because of its length, the final act ends up losing a little magic not having so much intensity and impact as it should have been.
Flaws aside, it's very good to see a different style in Hollywood and I am sure that this film will be the subject of constant analysis over the years, not only for is unique style but also for the messages it wants to pass.
Snowpiercer is a film that perfectly projects the type of stigma in society in general, the problem that has always existed and unfortunately still exists today between the different social classes.
Unequivocally, unmistakably, undeniably Disney's greatest animated film. A masterpiece, as far as I'm concerned. Long read ahead!
Film and reviews are all about opinions, which is only a positive thing. I, for one, though have yet to find a better animation than this. No doubt I'm probably partly clouded by nostalgia, but even a tonne of years later I still remember how blown away I was when I first watched it. Nothing's changed.
Where to start? I love every single detail about this film, for which there are many. Not only does it improve upon the studio's earlier 1950 production about Robert Louis Stevenson's 1883 novel, but it manages to create an incredibly touching, amusing and rather thrilling story for all. They don't rely on the usual, overdone Disney front and center romance to do it either.
It's a story of a young kid coming-of-age into the world. You really go on a journey with Jim Hawkins, who hadn't had the most happiest childhood. We see him grow into a man across just 95 short minutes. Joseph Gordon-Levitt brings Jim to life superbly, no surprise to see he has done other great things in his career.
Gordon-Levitt isn't the only outstanding performer here, with Brian Murray and Emma Thompson showing their talents in the roles of John Silver and Capt. Amelia. I adore the dynamic between Silver and Hawkins, Murray is truly brilliant. Thompson is great in her role, also.
Even below those aforementioned names, you have memorable characters in Delbert (David Hyde Pierce), B.E.N. (Martin Short) and Mr. Arrow (Roscoe Lee Browne). Morph (Dane Davis) is a cracking little sidekick, too.
Away from the cast, you also have the sensational animation. They mix hand-drawn 2D and computer generated 3D, which comes out exquisitely. Sure some of it hasn't aged impeccably compared to now, but it all to this day still looks utterly stunning. I love the attention to detail.
That's not all. How about that music? I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've listened to that soundtrack down the years, it's so beautifully crafted by James Newton Howard and John Rzeznik; the latter's, as part of the Goo Goo Dolls, "I'm Still Here" fits so, so well.
Can you tell how much fondness I hold for this? It's fantastic! Did Disney mishandle it? Sure. Does it deserves more respect? Definitely. However, I'm kinda glad they just let Ron Clements and John Musker do their thing. Heavy Disney interference could've ruined it. The fact this has zero pointless sequels is marvellous, even if it's for the wrong reasons.
There are minor rumours they plan to live-action this. Normally I'd argue against classics being remade, but I think this 2002 production is in a win-win position in that regard. If it's a big success it'll be good for it, if it's terrible then it'll put more eyes on the original.
It's kinda funny, I don't see myself as a Disney fan and yet my two favourites films (this + 'Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl') are from this studio - and both pirate-y, interestingly. Hmm.
Go watch 'Treasure Planet'!
This is by far the greatest TV Show of all time. No other Show started amazingly, got better in the second season and finished even better than that in the final season. Absolutely phenomenal.
As a former lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies, who has written a major report on radicalization in Muslim schools, and who has written many articles about radical Islam, I was worried that this series might be filled with all sorts of misunderstandings and inaccuracies and mistakes. In fact, it was well researched, down to subtle things such as distinguishing between jihad al-akbar and jihad al-asghar, using both terms in Arabic. And saying fard (duty) without translation. The portrayal of ISIS in Raqqa seemed to me most convincing, based as it was on authentic film and reportage. As the author of ten international thrillers (several bestsellers and three or four with Islamic themes), I found the tension well built, making many episodes nail-biting. The characters are well developed, if at times frustrating. I have taken one star off on account of the coincidences and other plot holes. Despite these, the series works in terms of character, pace, and plot lines. I strongly recommend it to anyone who likes well written and well performed drama that will keep one watching through the eight episodes with speed. As for the several people here leaving 3, 4, 5 or other low ratings, I would pay them no heed at all.
I've had an amazing experience watching the movie premiere in Venice, I've been waiting for this movie for a long time and I was not disappointed in the slightest.
It's a gorgeous movie, it's disturbing but moving at the same time, violent at times, but also subtle. It's a different and fresh spin on the character and on the cinecomic genre as a whole and Phoenix delivers an amazing performance portraying a version of the Joker we've never seen before, he's not the villain of someone else's story, he is the hero and villain of HIS own story, and the audience can be orrified by him, but we can't help but feel for him at times.
Without giving anything away I would recommend to go and see the movie not expecting to go and see an action packed, but gritty cinecomic, I suggest going in and watch it pretending that it's not even about a famous comic villain, but simply a movie, I think that people will appreciate it more in that way, not comparing it to the cinecomics we've seen before, but thinking of it as a normal movie.
P.S.: People will of course compare Phoenix to Ledger, I don't think it's possible, they give a totally different percormance because they portray totally different versions of the character, and I think it's going to be hard to compare them, you either prefere Ledger's version or Phoenix's but only based on the character, the actor's performances cannot be judged by comparison, they're both great. Just enjoy the movie
The rating should at least be in the 90s for sure! Very inspiring movie for me personally. If you have an idea you are trying to get off the ground, watch this movie, then you will start working on it immediately after. Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross do an amazing job with the soundtrack. Interesting note that approximately 83% of trakt has been coded while listening to this soundtrack :)
January films are tricky. A lot of people may say January is the month that films go to die, but I argue that sometimes, just sometimes, you can find a film or two released in the first month that’s actually worth watching, and I think Escape Room can ultimately be put into that category. If you’re a fan of the Saw and Cube franchises like I am, you’ll probably love this film too, regardless of the fact that its PG-13 limitation systematically means no gore. It has that same level of intrigue, fascination, and mystery that the aforementioned films contain that just make the movies a fun experience overall.
I’m not saying it’s a perfect film, because you can tell right away that it’s flawed – especially with the acting. The acting in this movie is distractedly bad at times, because these characters have to believably give off the idea that they are actually afraid and are in danger, something that is technically really difficult to do. You gotta remember that these actors are actually safe and in a controlled environment, so to portray the opposite is probably one heck of a challenge. Then again, it is their job to do so. Just know that acting wasn’t exactly a big focus overall. There’s a lot going on in this film that shouldn’t be overlooked. So, let’s take a look at the film as a whole.
PEOPLE – 50% (10/20)
Acting – ★☆☆☆ | Characters – ★★★☆ | Casting – ★★☆☆ | Importance – ★★☆☆ | Chemistry – ★★☆☆
Sometimes, I feel like I would be a better horror/thriller writer than most out there right now purely because of my understanding with how important people are for these films. This category is extremely important for any film, sure, but especially horror and thriller, because how else will you CARE about the characters when they ultimately die or are put in immediate danger? Folks over in the movie business focus a lot on the scares or elements of danger, but the people on screen are so throwaway, it’s honestly sad. The acting is the first thing you will notice out of the gate. It’s bad. Really, really bad, specifically when it needs to be good. These characters work well when they’re goofing around or not trying to be scared, but given how this is a horror/thriller film, we need believably scared individuals, which we simply don’t have here. The characters are very, very interchangeable, but they all at least have a purpose for being here that relate to each other – similar to certain films in the Saw franchise, which makes them slightly better than your typical range of characters. The casting is fine, but nobody feels born to play their roles. Importance wise, they’re all fine, but like I said, they are all interchangeable, and the chemistry is fine…but because it’s not exactly a chemistry-centric film, there’s not really much of it to be found overall.
WRITING – 70% (7/10)
Dialogue – ★★ | Balance – ★★ | Story Depth – ☆☆ | Originality – ★☆ | Interesting – ★★
Now, believe it or not, I think the writing in this film was somewhat smart. Even though it is a horror/thriller film, it did at least attempt to come up with a complex story line that is very comparable to the mysteries and riddles you find in real escape rooms – and because there are multiple rooms, it never really stops impressing you in these elements. When it comes to dialogue, you can tell they thought extra hard on making riddles that weren’t impossible to solve, but are still pretty clever – and this is true throughout the film, so dialogue is central to the plot in this way. It’s also a very simple, balanced film where everyone is working together as a group-hero scenario – fighting for the same end goal – to make it out alive. This isn’t a deep or meaningful film by any means necessary. You can grasp at straws all you want and say it’s all about teamwork and working together, but that’s just silly. Originality-wise…I have never really seen an escape room film, and given the popularity of escape rooms recently, it makes sense why it showed up now. It feels like Saw and Cube had a lovechild, but I’m not complaining. And it was absolutely interesting enough for me to watch – and kept my interest throughout the film.
BTS – 80% (8/10)
Visuals – ★★ | Cinematography – ★★ | Editing – ★☆ | Advertising – ★★ | Music & Sound – ★☆
I would say the stuff going on behind-the-scenes wasn’t too bad. The most prominent aspect of what looked so great with this film was the visuals when it came to production design. Production design, at least for me, is when the setting of the film feels like a main character, and the sets of all of these escape rooms are actually really well thought out, especially with the upside-down room. The upside-down room was so, so clever, and the way it was ultimately shot helped the cinematography also stand out as a whole. Editing and Music/Sound were both pretty average and typical, but everything else more or less stood out and impressed me in ways I don’t normally see in similar films.
NARRATIVE ARC – 80% (8/10)
Introduction – ★☆ | Inciting Incident – ★★ | Obstacles – ★★ | Climax – ★★ | Resolution – ★☆
We had a mostly solid narrative structure, except for the introduction. Films like these like to get the ball rolling relatively quickly, so they don’t really take the time to introduce you to the characters…not really. It did a quick introduction of like, half the characters, and that was it…and those introductions weren’t even good enough for their characters. It was really impatient as far as getting things going, but once it starts, it starts. Everything worked out well here. The inciting incident is when the game starts, the crossing off the threshold is when they realize the game is kind of trying to kill them, the obstacles are the rooms in themselves, the climax is a big culmination that the rest of the film is building up to, and these movies don’t really have the best resolutions…that’s part of the point. They don’t ever return to a new sense of norm because that threatens their ability to make a sequel the way they want – and this is a movie that is probably going to be made into at least 5 other movies.
ENTERTAINMENT – 70% (7/10)
Rewatchability -★★ | Fun Experience – ★★ | Impulse to Buy or Own it – ★☆ | Impulse to Talk About or Recommend It – ☆☆ | Riveting – ★★
Before I saw this film, I saw people claiming the movie is a lot of fun, and indeed it is. That’s sort of the whole point. This is the type of film that knows it’s not going to win awards, and never even tries to because it’s too busy trying to have fun – that is where it succeeds. You’ll have a good time with this one, you’ll want to watch it again, and if you’re like me, you wouldn’t mind owning it, either. It’s just a fun time at the movies. Plus, it’s fast enough, and complex enough that you can’t really look away or you’ll miss something substantial, making the film riveting as well.
SPECIALTY – 87.5% (35/40)
Escape Rooms– ★★★★★★★★★★
As mentioned above, I can’t say I have ever seen a movie focusing on Escape Rooms before. It’s a concept that is done in similar fashions in similar movies, but if you’re as specific as me, I was really happy they made it. When talking about movies featuring escape rooms, you know I’d bring this one up, which is a success for them.
Thriller Genre – ★★★★★★★★★★
I really only have one prerequisite when watching thrillers, I want to be thrilled. I want my heart pounding watching it. That either means I’m scared for the people, or I just find it that fun. Escape Room is pure fun, and the very first room had my heart pounding, so this gets full points for me, as well.
Horror Genre – ★★★★★☆☆☆☆☆
I almost gave this zero points, and I’ll tell you why – it’s neither gory or scary…which a lot of the times are the foundation of what makes a horror film. But there’s something else. The horror genre is a niche that a lot of people are not only fans of, but they ONLY watch horror. They get their subscription to things like SHUDDER and join Facebook Horror Movie groups, and that’s their life. It took me a long time to understand where these people are coming from, but a lot of it has to do with just dumb fun – which is what this movie is all about. It may not have the gore, it may not have jump scares, it may not have slow-climbing scares, or anything paranormal, but it has that subtle feeling Horror fans love regardless, which means this should at least get half points.
Halfway Decent – ★★★★★★★★★★
Did they make the film they intended to make from the get-go? Of course they did. If I wanted to make a movie about escape rooms, I doubt I would’ve been able to get anything similar. They did a great job making their vision come to life.
TOTAL SCORE – 75%
I went in expecting this movie to be bad, so at least I wasn't disappointed because of high expectations. Better casting would have improved this movie immensely.
I can't imagine Luc Besson envisioning the role of Valerian and saying, "You know who would be great for this role, Dane DeHaan." Maybe he went, you know type casting? Well, let's do the opposite of that. I would really like to know what he was thinking.
I mean seriously, how in hell did the people making this movie think the pale, sickly looking with the dark circles under his eyes Dane DeHaan could pull off playing a cool, witty, bad-ass action hero? He couldn't & he didn't. I fully expected him to have a nose bleed at any moment. This guy looks like a real-life young Mr. Burns from "The Simpsons". Might as well have Jim Parsons who plays Sheldon Cooper on “The Big Bang Theory” play the role. He would have been about as believable. When DeHaan first started reciting his lines in the movie, I was like, "This guy is talking like he thinks he's a bad-ass. Oh wait, this is for real. He's supposed to be the hero? WTF?" It was awful. Surely they could have found an actor with some charisma to play the lead role. Where’s this generation’s Bruce Willis? And Cara Delevingne, sure she's cute, but come on, she looks more like a high school cheerleader than a bad-ass government operative. There is just no way to buy either of them in the roles they were playing. Among all the other things, they just seem too young. There was supposed to be a romantic relationship between them yet they had zero chemistry. I couldn't feel it and ultimately it was unbelievable.
If it weren't for the stunning costumes, sets, and visuals, this film would have been a total bust.
In the end, I did manage to suspend disbelief just enough to get a modicum of enjoyment, but trust me, this was in spite of the lead actors and weak story line.
Question about the story. How much time was supposed to have passed between when the Pearl Princess released her consciousness into the universe and when she landed in Valerian? The Commander played by Clive Owen was in charge when Mül was destroyed so it didn’t seem like much time at all. The movie made it seem like only maybe a week passed. PLEASE REPLY IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER. The surviving non-technical Pearl people who lived in harmony with their environment get to Alpha, quickly learn everything there is to learn, and then apparently develop a new technology of their own that no one can penetrate to hide themselves at the core. How is that even remotely believable?
Edit: After watching the movie again, I noticed that twice it mentions that the planet Mül was destroyed 30 years ago.
Don’t watch this in theaters if there’s a chance of your friends saying a word.
While the film is an incredible and affectionately made tribute to the boys, there is a fair amount of artistic licence used and the film’s story differs from real life events.
“Zenobia” - The Elephant Film....
In “Stan and Ollie”, the film portrays Stan at Fox Studios ready to sign a contract but Ollie doesn’t turn up because he’s still at Hal Roach Studios, making “the elephant film” ( the actual title was “Zenobia”).
In reality, after leaving Roach Studios in 1940, both Laurel and Hardy made 6 films with Fox Studios and 2 films for MGM between 1941 - 1945. (Therefore Ollie did actually turn up to sign the contracts.)
“Zenobia” was made in 1938, when Stan’s contract with Roach had terminated and he was unwilling to sign a new contract with Roach until Ollie’s had expired too. Therefore they could sign a contract at the same time together. It was the next best thing to having a joint contract.
While the “Stan and Ollie” film portrays them both as remaining bitter about “the elephant film” and eventually having an argument in public about it, the reality was that it was never an issue between them. By all accounts, they always remained friends and never had a falling out.
“Stan and Ollie” doesn’t mention the fact that Ollie appeared in two further films without Stan. “The Fighting Kentuckian” (1949) starring John Wayne and “Riding High” (1950) starring Bing Crosby.
If “the elephant film” was such a big issue between them, it’s doubtful Ollie would have appeared in two more films without Stan.
Nobby Cook.....
In the biopic, when Ollie falls ill, tour manager Bernard Delfont convinces Stan to temporarily join a new comedy partner named Nobby Cook. Due to his loyalty towards Ollie, Stan backs out at last minute, causing them to cancel the show.
Nobby Cook was actually a fictional character created for the “Stan and Ollie” film. There was never any attempt to form a new partnership. In reality, Ollie suffered a mild heart attack in Plymouth in May 1954. He recovered at the Grand Hotel and they both sailed back to the United States on 2 June. Ollie sadly passed away in 1957.
The UK Tours....
Laurel and Hardy toured the UK in 1947, 1952 and 1953-54. They had also arrived in the UK for a holiday back in 1932, however the huge crowds of people that greeted them prevented any relaxation they might have hoped for.
The “Stan and Ollie” film portrayed it as though they’d lost their popularity and that they were initially playing to almost empty theatres. In reality their first tours were highly successful. The crowds that greeted them at each public event can only be compared to Beatlemania.
It was only on their final tour in 1953-54 that audience numbers occasionally dropped but certainly not to the same extent portrayed in the film. Contemporary reviews of this tour were also mixed, most likely due to Ollie’s failing health.
On all of their tours they were part of a package variety show with a number of different acts on the bill.
Hal Roach Studios - The Lot Of Fun.....
Laurel and Hardy’s film producer, Hal Roach was nothing like how he was portrayed in the biopic. All of his actors and crew were extremely well paid.
In 1934, Roach paid himself $2,000 a week, Ollie also received $2,000 a week and Stan was on $3,500 a week. Therefore Roach was paying Stan Laurel more money than he was even paying himself. This was reflective of the many extra hours Stan spent working with the writers before and during the production and then working with editor Bert Jordan after photography was completed.
If certain scenes didn’t play too well in the previews, Roach never objected to spending more time and money to make it a better comedy film.
According to Laurel and Hardy film historian, Randy Skretvedt: “Roach actually lost money by making the three and four-reel films because the agreement was for a set number of two-reelers.”
On making the four-reel Laurel and Hardy film “Beau Hunks” Roach told Skretvedt: “It was already sold as a two-reeler; we couldn’t get any more dough out of all the circuits because they’d already bought it. But it was just one of those things; it was intended to be a two-reel comedy, but it kept getting funnier.”
Roach kept Laurel and Hardy on separate contracts that expired six months apart. This was to encourage them to stay at his studio. While some would say that this was a manipulative arrangement, it is understandable that Hal Roach wanted to keep the biggest comedy stars of the day at his studio. Especially considering the fact that his first major star, Harold Lloyd left his studio in 1923 to produce his own films.
In the Laurel and Hardy Encyclopedia, Glenn Mitchell writes: “Though necessarily ruthless, Roach permitted his employees a mostly free hand with an agreeable environment; most agree that there was no finer boss.”
“There’s been no other studio to date like it. MGM, Fox, Universal - they were nothing but machines. The Roach lot was very individual. And the people there had talent with a wonderful sense of humor. The Roach studio was nicknamed ‘The Lot of Fun’ because it was a comedy studio - and it was a lot of fun”. - Roy Seawright, optical effects department. Quote from “Laurel and Hardy, The Magic Behind The Movies”, Skretvedt.
"Much of the time, you feel like you're beholding the real duo, so thoroughly conceived are the actors' physicality and performances”. - Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter.
While “Stan and Ollie” is a fictional re-imagining of the events and creative with the facts, it is certainly an excellent tribute to their work and legacy. Many skeptics have been astonished by the skilled performances of Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly and most agree that they couldn’t have chosen anyone better to play the parts.
The costumes and set designs for the film are nothing short of phenomenal. During the re-creation of the famous dance sequence (from their 1937 feature “Way Out West”), they were able to use exactly the same background footage used in the original film. It’s this attention to detail which makes the viewer believe they’re watching the original sequences.
Most importantly, the film has helped put Laurel and Hardy back in the limelight and encouraged parents to show their children the greatest comedy films of all time. Their timeless humour appeals to all ages and this film has helped introduce them to a new generation.
It is a very funny and moving film made with genuine affection for the comedy of Laurel and Hardy.
