Man, I've gotten behind in writing reviews. I'm writing this in my college library, that's how pressed I am for time. The next couple entries will just be short, quick rambles for the films I've seen in the past week. Death Wish, I'm puzzled at the lukewarm and left-leaning reactions I'm hearing from audiences and those at Rotten Tomatoes. Was it released at "at a bad time" and is it a conservative's wet-dream? I don't know, ask the critics who denounced the original film from 1974, quote, "It was attacked by many film critics due to its support of vigilantism and advocating unlimited punishment of criminals. The novel denounced vigilantism, whereas the film embraced the notion." If you aren't aware, somehow, Eli has a hard-on for grindhouse features and exploitation movies from the 70's. He's worked with Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez multiple times now, Grindhouse, and the trio all love this era and low-budget type of production. So, the love for that genre is translated in a fascinating and fun approach, whereat times, the film feels like a flashback to drive-in cheese, in a good way. At other points, however, it captures a sniff or essence of a Wes Craven, yes, I just said that. Death Wish feels like Wes Craven's Scream for a few elongated sequences, noticeably the critical break-in with Bruce Willis' family. It's very reminiscent of the opening from Scream, which is why I bring it up. It may not be as clever, but it has that 90's flavor, like this movie has been in a time capsule for the last two decades. That doesn't make it dated, but it has that intoxicating aroma, which is what I love about Death Wish. Eli goes full-on with his kills, and they're all justified, if you actually watch the movie. The shoot-outs are so grand and memorable, I jumped in my seat and lost my breath repeatedly. For those who have seen it, that scene where he walks up to the "ice-cream seller" and just shoots him without hesitation, come on, is that not one of the best kills since some of the westerns of the 60's? Bruce Willis is a serious badass, you will want to be him. It's a true return for him as an action star. Mind you, it's a bit gory, you will be squeamish at a time or two, but that's Eli's formula, note Hostel as one of his more famous movies. But as a fan myself of the exploitation era, and genuine pure action, there's not a lot left for me to say but, this is a criminally underrated and underexposed action flick. A great return for the genre with majestic and perfected action. Sounds like high praise? Might be, but anyone who's a fan of THE grindhouse needs to see this now.
Wow, this latest Jennifer Lawrence "movie" is a lifeless slog, complete with horrible, uninteresting leads, unrecognizable bland locations, improper direction, lack of an emotional connection, and feels like only an edgy teenager would consider "artsy" because it's slow and quiet. Who the hell made this?
looks up the director's filmography
Oh, that explains a lot.
I know I keep giving mainstream movies a hard time. We're living in an age where blockbusters, like Black Panther, are superficial and lazy committee projects used to sell products to the general public. But then on the other hand, you got this stuff like Red Sparrow that just turns off said masses from the more original and creative small projects. I know this isn't a small movie, but it's an original movie not tied to some cinematic universe. The issue is, this movie's a piece of shit. It's the dilemma Downsizing and It Comes At Night had with audiences: being lousy "art" movies that are miss-marketed to a mainstream demographic. Doing this shit is only driving people back to the "safe" movies made by Disney. When people are dropping over $10 on a ticket, your film better match up to that selling price. There's a reason Black Panther is winning the box office right now, because people would rather trust a certified movie like that, than take a risk with a shit movie like this. I guess my incoherent rambling just boils down to... stop making bad movies? I don't know, my mind is spinning right now. Black Panther is undeniably a more coherent and gratifying experience, so they got me there, but at the same time, it's barely above this. Quality control has definitely been abolished, I will say that. These studios view something like Red Sparrow as the answer to the pleading call from losers like me, for more original projects. So, they don't care what it is or how good, just that it's the answer. We're already on the road where the only profitable movies will be the spectacle Disney movies, full of action and product placement. They infect all the months around them, so none of the smaller movies stand any chance. Only the few meme movies that Reddit and the Oscars pick up stand a chance at making an impact. Why else does Chris Hemsworth keep choosing to play Thor instead of doing other movies? Because they don't make as much money, and most of them aren't good movies either. Maybe cinema has always been like this, a handful of movies each year are worthwhile and the rest just aren't.
Holy shit, this movie took the biggest quality 180-turn I've ever witnessed. About a half hour into Den of Thieves, I was ready to call it quits. Slap a 'Please stop' and a one star rating on this and walk out, but miraculously, the clusterfuck of a script climbed itself out of it's conventional and edgy teenager levels of writing. It was able to correct it's under-cooked meat and present a thrilling second and third act. I can even pin-point the minute it happened. It's when Gerard Butler is at his daughter's school, he's talking to her through the fence, but when he gets back to his car, he breaks down in tears. Seen the scenario a million times before, but from that scene on, the big heist the movie had been horribly building up to started to happen. Let me just say, the editing, deliberate lack of music, the tension, the quick camera cuts, acute attention to detail, the raw acting, is all, pardon me, really fucking good. Unlike the previous fifty minutes or so, none of the dialogue or acting felt hokey, the performances are intense, and it's mature use of weapon handling just added to the realism. It's just shocking to me, because I've seen movies like Marauders, where the entire film reeks of amateurish direction and horrible trope-y childish ideas, and the whole movie is like that. "Oh man, this thug cop who doesn't play by the rules likes to party, drink beer, smoke, and beat criminals up. He's so cool." Den of Thieves starts off in that territory, horrible, criminal levels of bad, but inverted dramatically and turned great. I want to know what happened behind-the-scenes and who wrote the first hour of the movie. Everything involving the heist and subsequent chase is great. Go see this, just show up a half hour late, you won't miss much.
fuck that bear scene and fuck that camera footage
This is the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. movie I've always wanted. The disturbing imagery, psychological exploration, atmosphere, tension, it's all out of this world. The over-grown, disturbing, but entrancing layout of the shimmer is the long-awaited Chernobyl and Fallout-esque landscape I've wanted to see explored on-screen for years; but yes, it goes way beyond that. Ignoring it's few-and-far-between narrative hiccups, Annihilation is the one of few films in the past decade to have my full-attention start to finish. Come on, we all do this. I wasn't bouncing around ideas for my script for my review while I was watching, I wasn't thinking of other things in my mind as scenes passed by. Absolutely not, I was all in for this one. The story isn't what I'd consider too-brainy for the box office, in fact a number of it's themes are blatantly spelled out through dialogue, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting as hell. It's just abstract, which is what may be turning off the common audience. Despite it's on the nose nature, possibly from Paramount's pressures to make the movie more accessible, it manages to delve more into it's greater questions about evolution of life itself; the whole hour and forty minute journey of this project is a jaw-dropping experience. As I humorously stated above, there are a few very disturbing and shocking scenes here, so steer clear if you're squeamish at all, I was getting Sinister flashbacks.
The thing I've hated about a lot of productions coming out, is a lot of them fully grasp their potential. What do I mean? Many works, The Dark Tower comes to my mind, for example, may introduce a compelling plot point, like the main character has a connection to this object, or, this side-character came from an abused family, I don't know, some casual beat of the story that's introduced. But a lot of times what happens, is a segment like that is brought up, only to further move the story along, and that beat is totally ignored afterwards. I keep thinking, why not make the movie longer and tap into these really exciting ideas? You've got the base, go all the way with what you can within the story's limits. Go all the way. A real-world example, Silent Hill: Revelation, the master-piece-of-shit sequel to one of my favorite movies of all time, had an added set of characters that were introduced mid-way into the run-time, and the woman in the pair basically said, "We took a wrong turn, we got lost in the fog." And all I kept thinking was, "Why aren't we seeing that? That sounds like a cool and creepy tangent."
But even beyond that, not just plot-points, central themes of a movie. What I was worried, with Annihilation, was the environment in the shimmer is so fascinating and absorbing, I began to worry at a point the movie wouldn't explore it. It wouldn't show off much of the environment and what it's effects have been on what stays in it. But thankfully, it does tap into that realm, so I am satisfied. I kept saying, "Come on, come on, you're so close, just keep going with this creepy sequence," until finally, "Yes! You did it. You went all DAE way with it. I am happy." If there's one thing I hate about movies more than any other quality, it's untapped potential. Having a cool set-up only to go nowhere. Thankfully, Annihilation goes a long way and satisfies. If you want to be creeped the hell out, go see it right now.
This is the first movie I've ever brought a notepad with me to the theater and actively wrote stuff down. That was interesting; I will say, it made the movie go by much faster because I was more involved. I think instead of writing a proper review, I'm just going to hilariously re-write what I crudely wrote on my pad of paper.
"I got more joy out of the Mary (and the witch's flower) preview before the movie. How many seconds have I wasted watching that M&M's fake movie trailer? The wedding in this is much shorter than the one in Twilight, thank God. This is great cinematography. Why is Anna surprised by Christian owning a jet? She flew in a drone and helicopter in the first movie. There's generic action stealth music in this hijacking scene. 'It's Boobs in Boobs-land' is an actual line in this movie. 'Don't pull, they'll bite' is an actual line in this movie. This is The Room levels of bad, getting into the sex scenes quick. Generic plot with generic Danny Elfman music. Christian Grey drove all the way down to Anna's work just because of her fucking e-mail. Why no text messaging? Sitting on a couch for a conversation, such great direction. There's no plot, there's little fantasy sequences with pop music. 'Oh look, a fancy car! Oh look, a fancy house!' Horrible Anna race driving scene, pointless SUV-following sequence, Christian Grey no-have security? Wouldn't the SUV-guy find them later? Grey is a billionaire, his presence is everywhere. Going to New York to escape anonymous driver? Why? Comes back, go to fancy house for little vacation, more pointless sex and bathing scene. Anna restrains the intruder with her play handcuffs, how funny. Christian's trip to New York added nothing to the plot. Sex scenes are not earned or built up, they just happen. Another random vacation montage with soundtrack music. I feel the characters are one-dimensional on purpose so you can insert yourself in them. Embarrassing scene Anna dropping ice cream on Grey's chest with more soundtrack music, totally ignores drama from last scene. The whole movie has fake pseudo-drama, but uses it as a vehicle to sell women's fantasy sequences as a product. Who fucking cares about Anna's friend trying out dresses or getting engaged? 'Uh-oh! Anna rolled her eyes, better punish her in another sex scene with more soundtrack.' Play sad soundtrack song over news of Anna pregnant, it's forced drama. I started ironically getting into it by the end, like, 'Yay, Christian wants to have the baby now!"
There's this really silly flashback montage at the very end of the movie, using clips from the last two movies, as if we went on a journey with them or some shit. I'll admit, I'm going to miss hating on this franchise, it was a fun short-lived ride, unless they dig it back up for a spin-off.
R.I.P. The Fifty Shades Of Grey series
There was such a huge missed opportunity to push a pre-established joke. In one bit, Dug is sneaking into the enemy's royal arena to get some soccer balls for their team's training. The girl, Goona, sees and asks what he's doing. Dug responds, "I need to get some balls." Goona just replies, "You're really brave... or stupid. Probably stupid." I was thinking after that, why didn't she say, "You already have some balls for sneaking in here."
This is literally Aardman's Space Jam. I'm not exaggerating, it's the same script practically. Take Space Jam, replace the "heroes being turned into theme park attractions" with "heroes being forced to work in a mine," and then replace the basketball with soccer. There you go, same thing. Problem is, it's not as good, or even memorable as Space Jam. The soundtrack and Michael Jordon's green-screened performance with the Looney Toons' characters made the film a cult classic, even earning it a 15th anniversary re-release. I applaud all of Early Man's cast and Aardman's stunning stop-motion work, but the story is not anything special. It's every h eroes' journey story ever told, and not done any differently. I don't remember any of the cave-men's names because none of them were really properly developed, and there's over ten of 'em. That's just the unfortunate nature of kid's movies that are an hour and a half long. That brings me back to my My Little Pony: The Movie, that, this was not made for me, but keeps the adults in mind so they're entertained. I'm a big fan of Nick Park's work, the Wallace and Gromit series is one of my favorite franchises of all time. So, if you are hesitant about seeing this movie, I'll just say, go see it under the following conditions: If you have kids, if you have MoviePass, and if you want to support the studio. If you don't fall under any of those, don't bother, I hate to say it. Judging strictly on it's technical merits, it's a very-average movie held up by it's stop-motion spectacle.
I'm not even going to be bother with a long review, this "big-budget" religious piece of confusing garbage doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately, it's not terrible enough to be funny, i-it gets close in a couple places, but falls into the just-trash mountain. Samson is the latest disaster by Pure Flix, after such smash hits like God's Not Dead 2. They decided to go big-budget for this one, which I guess means paying $50 for a shitty SD drone-camera that looks horrible every time it shows up, the left-over CG from Gods of Egypt, and actors plucked out of the middle of a porno. There were times I was expecting a sex scene to happen, just because the production design and script felt like something out of that. Samson's fake beard he gets half-way in is some of the worst make-up appliance I've ever seen, there's a reason there's a category for this at the Oscars. Billy Zane looks like he's doing this for the million dollar check I'm sure Pure Flix promised him, he's so fat and looks so out of place here. And they managed to drag Sokka from the live-action The Last Airbender on-set too. I walked out around the time he grabbed Billy Zane's crown from atop his head, I couldn't stop thinking about the "BALD!" scene from The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie. There's this quick little part before the third act beings, Samson and his brother step out of a cave, and good lord, the green-screen they had to use for these lines of dialogue is so horrible, I started laughing out loud in the middle of this empty theater. I feel awful for the class of Church kids that will probably be forced to endure this.
The fight choreography is terrible, the script is abysmal, the characters are flat with no depth, the special effects are eye-piercing, and the stock music deserves a round of applause. You guys know the Youtuber, Sargon of Akkad? They play his theme song in the movie, which I assume now is a stock piece of music. I really hope the budget for this wasn't any higher than $20,000. Monsters was made for less than $500,000 and Hardcore Henry was made for less than 2 million. Pure Flix, please just cancel God's Not Dead 3 now, have mercy on our souls.
Clint Eastwood's
A Series Of Pointless Events
I was going to write more, but my dad summed it up pretty good with that title. One of the worst films I've seen a long time. This is Tommy Wiseau's The Room levels of bad, not exaggerating. Scenes that are so short with no purpose are all over this movie. Some scenes even mirror ones from The Room, like when they go into an ice cream shop and for four minutes, talk about random junk that have no effect on the story. There's an entire section of this movie where these jackasses just tour Rome and take selfies all over the place. Nothing matters, all the dialogue is horrible, the acting is some of the worst I have ever laid eyes on, there's baffling editing choices, inconsistencies in the editing, bland music, and POINTLESS every-day affairs.
This movie has inspired me to take a notebook with me to movies now, so I can write shit down as I watch. I'm just now remembering stuff. There's a little moment with one of the friends as a kid, he's in his room, and on the wall, is a poster for Letters of Iwo Jima, one of Clint Eastwood's movies. Reminded me of that bit in Transformers 2 with Sam in his dorm room, and there's a Bad Boys 2 poster on the wall. But beside the nitpicks, the movie fails at it's emotional structure. The real heroes suck as actors, so it's hard to take their monotone mumbling performances seriously, and a large portion of the movie just focuses on random seemingly unimportant pieces of their life. We get no look at who the terrorist is or where he comes from. I felt no threat or tension in the final scene because the terrorist just came off as an incompetent shooter, just baffling. Even in Pearl Harbor, Michael Bay chose to include scenes with the Japanese army to hype up their power-level and what they could do to an American fleet. Here, there is not a single scene with any explanation or story for the terrorist, reducing my engagement. I'm not intimidated by him, so why should I care?
Typically, I disagree with the complaint that these army movies are nothing more than propaganda commercials for recruitment, but good Christ, this movie is the dictionary definition on throwing subtlety out the window. Spencer, or whatever the hell his name is, wants to join the Air Force. Okay, cool. Does that part of the story have any effect on the train attack at the end? No? What's the point of it? There is none? It's just to promote the Air Forces and the Marines? There's really no point to it? Thanks for wasting my time. Story comes first, plot structure comes first, tension comes first, characters come above-all, and this terrorism-level disaster of a "feature film" did nothing for me at all. It's also just a shame this isn't bad enough in a funny way to be like The Room. It borders into the category so many times, but keeps slipping into the just-bad territory. How did this happen, Eastwood?
You know, I gave this a below-average score when I initially watched it, but after thinking about this movie's place in the current wave of animated movies, I've bumped it up to a luke-warm recommendation. What do I mean? With the rise in such classic animated films to come out like The Emoji Movie and The Boss Baby, I almost feel obligated to recommend this movie just on the basis that it didn't insult my intelligence, and is a fine movie for children (or adults who are young at heart). I give the director Jayson Thiesson credit for going all out with the material and attempting to make this a Disney-style musical. The animation notably harkens back to great kid's films like The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, the character Pinkie Pie expressing some pretty colorful and eccentric faces. The point is, the animation is note-worthy, yes, it's all digital, but the work put in deserves appreciation more than some of the shit CG-movies out now. The bar has been set that low. The music is decent, encompassing a live orchestra to fuel the rather catchy songs, the characters are unique and recognizable, and overall, wasn't a chore to sit through. Remember, this wasn't made for me, but I'm glad it respects the adult viewers who are there watching. It's one of the better kid's movies to come out, we need to be encouraging this stuff, so, if you are an adult reading this, it's a decent pick to watch... well, if your kids haven't already asked to see it.
I think I've figured out Guillermo Del Toro, or at least, what I love and hate about his films. They're gorgeous, stylish, sensual, passionate, and beautifully crafted, but ultimately fall short in the script department. This is a trend I've had with every single one of his movies, including Pan's Labyrinth, Crimson Peak, Pacific Rim, and now The Shape Of Water. In my opinion, this is his best work to date. It's the most emotional I've gotten watching one of his pieces. Sally Hawkins is what absolutely sells this picture, above the retro aesthetic and whimsical music. Her performance is what makes the story believable, not to say the other cast don't give it their all. This is one of the best performances, if not THE best performance to come out of last year. She is so believable, it took my breath away at some pivotal scenes, I'm not kidding. That's what I admire about Del Toro's movies above a lot of others, is the clear passion that's being put in behind the scene. Even for some of his lesser-good projects, I can't hate them.
What makes The Shape Of Water just fall a little flat to me, which others may not find a problem with at all, is some scenes feel too short and underdeveloped. I understand this is a fairy tale and the entire story is supposed to be strictly about Hawkins and her fall for the unnamed creature, but then, why are some characters, small side characters mind you, given in-depth back-stories and entire scenes, when the outcome has little to no effect from them? There's a Russian side-plot that has a major effect on the story, but we don't get to know really much about what their intentions are, outside of Michael Shannon's character giving them the creature. I'm not saying we need an intricate explanation or anything, but there are a couple scenes with the Russians that have little weight in the overall picture, making the thread feel loose. Then, the montage of Hawkins interacting with the creature in the lab also feels just a tad short. Believe me, it's a positive when I say I wanted to see more. There's one scene and a montage with the two of them connecting, and then before we know it, she has to get the creature out or the Russians will take him. This is also where the movie falls into James Cameron's Avatar-levels of emotional manipulation. Michael Shannon's character is a occasionally comically evil, to the point where my brain got disconnected from being engrossed in the love story, and I said, "...why is he doing this?" The movie seriously relies on the audience being one-hundred percent sucked into the relationship with Hawkins and the creature, for you to buy every single plot point. This works most of the time, but others it's a big stretching it. I understand, it's a fairy-tale, the movie even starts and ends with a narration, but I feel it needs to still be believable within the confines of that set-up, especially with the serious moments come up. There's this one part, where Hawkins starts singing, and it's this big moment, because this is the first time she's made a sound the whole movie, but then, the scene doesn't work for me, 'cause it's not her voice singing and the dance-number is too short and silly for me to take seriously. I can clearly pick-up what he was doing, but those few elements deflated the tension.
The film still works, despite all that. I give Del Toro all my respect and admiration, his love for this project is all over this movie. I just wish another, longer draft was considered when filming. I still highly recommend you go watch it, there's plenty to appreciate, even if it's muddled up in a weird and short-lived bubble of happiness.
I loathe this recurring trend I'm seeing with a load of movies being put out, not just in the horror community. Studios take this engaging and expansive concept that could be fleshed out into a thought provoking and timeless archive of our culture, this Winchester story being the perfect capsule of life and death. There's plenty of interesting shit that's lightly tapped into... but like a ton of other projects of recent, we take this potentially enriching thing and throw it into the mainstream bubble. I can see the executives going, "Yes, this tale of a woman building time capsule rooms of dead people, and where they died, is cool and all... but it needs more poltergeists, jumpscares, and marketability." We're taking potential arthouse movies and slapping a studio coat of paint onto it. It's really disgusting.
In this movie, there are so many interesting conversations that are briefly explored. This woman is being told by supernatural beings (who were all killed by weapons from the company she owns), to build rooms in her mansion that capture their spirits and replicate the location where they died. That is so neat, and it amounts to barely anything. No big message at the end, no character study of this woman and the visiting doctor, who's also troubled just as much as her... really nothing. There's a lot of short scenes that go nowhere and inconsistent rules within the house. It's a generic ghost movie with a promising concept being used as the gimmick to draw suckers in like me. The synopsis is far more interesting than how it's executed.
I give credit for teed-bits of the production design, but we just had Crimson Peak and other great period piece movies, so I don't know what's the point of giving this credit for that. And for heaven's lord, I'm an apologist of egregious jump-scares, but this movie is not helping my case. I can't count how many times I wanted to walk about because of the predictable and ineffective jumps. Let's lock this movie up behind thirteen nails and forget it.
Even the poster is shit, step up your game, Netflix.
It's like two terrible hack directors, who are actually actors, saw It Comes At Night and The Strangers, then said, "Hey, let's remake The Strangers without understanding anything that made that movie interesting. Then let's throw in the ending from It Comes At Night. People will love this!" Nothing is explored, nothing is explained, all set-up plot threads early-on are completely ignored in favor of an open ending, there are no interesting characters, the drama is extremely forced and immaturely edgy, the cinematography and editing is jarring and even laughable at quite a few points, but overall, it's a fucking bore. It's trying to be like so many other horror movies (other bad horror movies, mind you, I mentioned Paranormal Activity 3 once when watching), and even doesn't understand why those were successful. All I can tell you, is Netflix is not having a good track record with their original movies. Sure, some of you may argue about Gerald's Game, but ultimately, nothing has impressed me enough into thinking paying for a subscription to this service is worth it. The idea I enjoyed Insidious: The Last Key more from earlier this month is downright unacceptable. Avoid this house, trust me, you won't want to buy it.
This movie is a miracle it exists and I'm so glad it does. It's great to see traditional 2D animation breath this lovingly on the big screen, and at the screening I was at, with a pretty decent crowd. I hope this means a comeback for this style and promises more in the future. Sure, the story is a little derivative of countless other works, but what makes the film feel whole and worthwhile is Mary Smith. She is just too damn adorable and likable right from when you first see her. The whole story is told from her perspective, so there are some sub-plots that aren't expanded or explained, and this is the reason why. It didn't matter in the main course. The point is you're supposed to be just as confused and entranced as her, and it works. The film manages to make itself fun and unique despite it's predictable and similar tropes you see in other anime films. The cast is adorable, the story is heart-warming, and the animation is absolutely spectacular, like really, some of the best I've ever seen, even better than a couple of the Miyazaki movies. Studio Ponoc really wanted to start out strong, to prove they can continue making these movies, and God, I hope they do. If you can still find a screening in your area, go seek it out. It's seriously enjoyable for what it is.
Holy lord, that was the best experience I've ever had in a theater. Went dressed up as Tommy Wiseau, took a picture with a fan, and stood up in front of the entire audience because I was the only one in costume. I would just like to thank the man himself for gracing the world with such an entertaining movie. How can the movie be that bad if it's that enjoyable? The entire audience was getting in on it, pointing out inconsistency errors, reciting quotes, and even throwing spoons (Which caused the police to come into the theater, so we had to stop). It's a sight to behold. Yeah, the movie from a technical perspective has some of the most amateur direction, blocking, scene set-ups, transitions, just everything. Every single little thing is done wrong, but in result, creates for a fantastic viewing party. Love this movie and you should love it too. Remember, if a lot of people love each other, the world would be a better place to live. Glad I didn't get kicked out of the theater for looking like a creepy homeless man who stole a tuxedo. The officers gave me looks as I went to the restroom, I was holding back laughter.
(Anyone else find it interesting with some of these movies now, in order to coax people to give the movie some extra credit points, they show a brief behind the scenes clip about the movie right before the movie starts? And then they say thanks for coming out and supporting the movie? Disney's Coco did it and now this. Guess it's going to become a trend now, considering the sky-dropping ticket sales...)
I'm gutted. Like, genuinely disappointed. As someone who was looking forward to this spectacle, listening to the soundtrack on Spotify before the movie even came out, I can't believe this is what I'm having to write about this. I expected this to be in my top ten of the year. I was hoping for a grand and memorable epic that had wonderful stuff, full of lovable characters, magical musical sequences, and etc. But this is not what I was treated to, no sir. Through the first half of this depressing bore, I kept bouncing around my head with my future rating, asking like, "Is this above-average? Am I enjoying this? Yeah, I guess so. There's been some cool scenes and music so far." But as the movie just kept trudging along past some seriously unexciting and eye-rolling numbers, I very slowly started to lower my expectations and rating. It wasn't until the very end when I very audibly said, "Oh my god, that can't be the end," and then the black screen came. The credits started rolling, and I just stood up. My face was literally down and I just felt depressed. I was the only one in the theater, by the way. Walking to the car, I couldn't believe what I just saw.
I'd say there's less than 10 actual minutes of P.T Barnum doing fantastical things on a stage. The rest of the movie is drama between him, his family, some European singer whom he takes on tour which causes further drama with his ensemble of freaks, and then Zac Efron's absolutely pointless subplot trying to get with one of the performers. There's so much the movie tries to tackle, and yet doesn't develop any of it, and then forgets the main reason people are there in the theater in the first place: To see the big dance numbers with jukebox music. I understand, this movie is really just about Barnum's life (When it actually isn't) and not about the big musical numbers, but if you're going to sell your movie on being a Luhrmann-esque musical, at least try to deliver on some of that. And if you won't do that, at least make your movie interesting to watch. There's the whole thing with Barnum's daughters, wanting to give them a good life, then there's his greed and wanting to become better than what he was, then the tour with the singer, then there's fulfilling what his wife wanted in their initial marriage (She has no character development the whole fucking movie, by the way, she's wasted), then there's gathering the freakshow people, then there's meeting Zac Efron, then there's Zac's sub-plot, and just, god, there was so much tapped into, but unused fat. This is actually a case where I would've preferred a four-hour 60's style musical epic, just so we could flesh out all of these ultimately pointless scenes. Some are genuinely interested. I wish there was like a big confrontation with the protesters, there KIND of is, but not much.
There's this other part where a critic comes to Barnum about the show, and honestly, he was the most interesting and sound character the whole movie, not even joking. Barnum tries to write him off as a snobbish newspaper critic who hates fun, but later after Barnum's building is destroyed in a fire, the critic comes back to him a final time. His words are actually the focal-message to the entire film, the big message, "Even with your cheap and fake display, you had people up there, all shapes and sizes, yet treated as equals." This line didn't come from the propped-up "wise" Barnum, not his wife, not his children, not even one of the freaks... the freaking newspaper critic. There's a problem with your movie when your most interesting character is that guy. I could even forgive the gigantic sub-plot about the European singer if at least the editing and pacing was done better. I'd say roughly 1/3'd of the entire run-time is this scandal drama that Barnum gets into with this woman; it's so uninteresting. People say this movie is like a tribute to Luhrmann's musicals; oh fuck no, it absolutely isn't. If you pay attention to the creative choices in that Red Curtain Trilogy, the dialogue and camera movements are so wacky and crazy, even in some of the calmer moments. The only shots I remember from this are clearly the trailer shots from the first 10 minutes. All The Greatest Showman has are some decently-done musical numbers mixed in with some really bad and under-developed "character" scenes.
When I was listening to the song "This Is Me" before I saw the movie, I envisioned something much more grand and amazing than what I saw on-screen. I got this idea of like a big emotional performance on-stage by Keala Settle, during the circus tour or something. Or even what if this was to the protesters? Wouldn't that have been more emotionally engaging? Instead, this is just her walking into ball-room with all the rich people scoffing her. Sure, I get what they were doing, but it was not nearly as effective as it could've been, and there was no build-up to it. What if the song happened after a whole sub-plot of confrontations happened with the protesters? I don't know, just something better than the shit I saw. The opening sequence with Barnum as a kid is so rushed and over-looked, that the connections to that opening later on have no effect because it's so brushed over. There's a whole part with his wife that ties back to that opening, and it's longer than the opening itself, it's ridiculous. Let me ask you a question: Without looking up the IMDB or page here, can you name off any of the characters besides Barnum's family and Zac Efron? What's the bearded fat lady's name? Why is it that I'm not able to remember her outside her appearance and one song? Great job getting me attached to these freak-show displays. By the end of the movie, I'm still in the exact same place as when I entered, not moved or mentally changed.
@Jumpy, I'm jealous of the theater experience you had. Getting to laugh at the movie with a bunch of other people? Man, did I wish I enjoyed sitting through this, at least for the rights reasons. Just the fact I was actually bored by what I was watching is a testament to how much they fucked up. I'm really, seriously disappointed. Don't go into this movie expecting the circus. You're not going to get it. All you'll get is a boring fan-fiction of a much more interesting sounding movie. Maybe my imagination for The Greatest Showman was more than what they could deliver. Just unbelievable. I'm going to go watch Moulin Rouge! again, bye guys.
This whole movie, I couldn't stop thinking about Shinji and Kaworu's sub-plot from Evangelion 3.33. There is no point to this movie. It is the most boring film involving an on-screen romance I've ever seen, and I've watched all of Fifty Shades Of Grey. While Shades is bad, it has greater production design, has a form of cohesive story-line, no matter how laughable, has a memorable soundtrack, and is actually enjoyable, in an ironic sense.. Call Me by Your Name wishes it could be this important coming of age bisexual story it props to be up from it's aesthetic and Oscar-bait attire, but all we're left with in the meat are pointless everyday scenes and sub-plots that go nowhere, characters given zero depth or personality, yes, including the two leads, locations so bland and in-effective in expanding the story's world, that scenes could be taking place anywhere, and cinematography that feels very amateurish at times. I started counting the number of times the camera forgot to put the characters in-focus after someone moves to another position on-screen. The blocking and placement of the actors is televisual and bland, there is not a single shot that sticks out to me. Sitting at a table, laying in bed, bicycling, and etc. The only shot that sticks out is the final one as the credits play, but that's only because it's held on for so long.
I'm actually having trouble finding stuff to write. The two stars give it their all, desperately scrounging up an ensemble performance that appears emotionally stirring, and I applaud their efforts. But this just does nothing for me. It's so inconsequential and pointless. There are far better gay movies out there. If that's the reason you guys are all giving this movie high scores, then I'm sorry, you're missing out on movies more worth your time. Go watch Strawberry and Chocolate, a much more entertaining and fulfilling little story. I think I'm done with gay movies. I've seen a lot in the past year and they've mostly just felt the same. This genre is really limited. I'm telling you this because I wanted you to know. Call me by your name and I'll call you by mine. Okay, I'll stop quoting obvious lines. By the way, there's a scene in the movie where he fucks an apricot. Symbolism? Maybe. Hilarious? Yes.
This is the definition of a crowd-pleaser horror movie, and it seems Blumhouse loves to churn those out. The biggest problem with this movie for me is it's obvious blandness and average quality. It's almost like the script is aware that it's using such a tired scenario, so they almost make fun of it at times. That doesn't mean it's a parody of itself, but it seems the cast knew what they were doing, and purposely wrote certain lines and shot scenes in some manners that are deliberately light in tone. I didn't expect to be this much comic-relief, but the audience I was with was laughing about the same amount of time as they were screaming. Which leads me into my argument, that this movie is only worth watching if you're seeing it with an enthusiastic crowd. Go opening weekend late at night when it's packed, it's hilarious. My theater was so loud, I was just enjoying myself at the reactions. But that's all this movie has going for it, besides a couple decent scenes and soundtrack. Don't watch it alone in your room, that's not what it's made for. Watch with friends or with a crowd or don't bother. Not the best way to start January, but this could've been way worse. Just painfully average.
Sony's Wreck-It Ralph. That's not an over-praising of this movie. It's a lot like that movie both in style and story elements, as it pokes fun references to most habits of video games. Like Disney's Wreck-It Ralph, there's lots of great character arcs and sweet moments, genuinely funny scenes, a heartfelt conclusion, and supremely creative fast-paced action. A bit of the story could use work in the last two acts. Some of the epic-feel that the first act presented was a little lost among the humor and formulaic story beats the last two acts kept striving for. There's the awkward romantic sub-plot involving two pairs of the group, a dramatic reveal of one of the introduced characters, a little tangent where a shut-in character is taught to do something brave and out-going, and etc. In comparison to Disney's movie, there's a lot of pretty clever in-jokes about the nature of video games, such as quick-time events, cut-scenes, and NPC's only have a limited range of programmed responses in conversations. What I wish the movie did was go all DAE way, just go nuts with it's premise and tackle video games as a whole. Go insane. Imagine what this movie could've been like if it went into hacking and using physics cheating like the shit you'd see in Garry's Mod servers. Holy lord, I'd pay to see that. But, you know, they got to keep things simple for most audiences, and that's okay. What makes the movie work very well, is it's characters and their interactions with one another. What delighted me was I was able to forget I was watching The Rock and Kevin Hart be themselves. They managed to pull performances that fit right in with their corresponding written characters (The ones outside the video game world). They felt subdued enough that it didn't feel like I was just watching celebrities on-screen acting stupid. Sure, there's stupid and way over-exaggerated jokes, but it works, and it's part of the fun. The whole movie works to certain degrees and that's what surprises me. I expected to just walk out so uninspired and lost on many of what it attempts to do, but I found myself smiling and some-what giggling along with the rest of the crowd, who were howling with laughter.
This is what a blockbuster should be. I'm not saying remake all old properties, but if you must, do something different with it. Give it a reason to exist. Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle overcomes all of it's obstacles, remaking an "unremakable" classic, being branded with infamous Sony pictures, and having just general low expectations among other movies released around the same time. It's not perfect, there's beats I had issues with and there was a lot more that could've been developed, but as is, this Jumanji sequel explodes and roars a breath of relieving fresh air and was a lot of fun, something I don't say about most blockbusters of today. I'm looking at you, every shit Marvel movie released this year. Surprising to find the director of this mostly did adult comedies before this.
You know what I recommend you do with your time instead of watching this? Take a fucking nap. This slug moves at the pace of a boring four hour epic you'd see from sixty years ago, yet it's run-time is miraculously only two hours and fifteen painful, agonizing, and traumatic minutes. You think this movie is a comedy? Fuck no. This is just another in a long line of pretentious "arthouse?" movies being falsely advertised to a general audience, only for it to backfire and cause terrible word of mouth/poor critical reception. I half-knew what I was getting into based on what I heard from initial viewings, but I still went in with the expectations I was going to see a drama with some comedy elements.
So, you may be asking, well hell, if this movie isn't a comedy, what is Downsizing all about? Here you go: immigration. Yup, that's it. Wow, how original. That hasn't been done already in a ton of other worthless indie projects in the past year. That's totally not wasting this interesting concept. Matt Damon has to star in another misleading political propaganda piece that has no a single aspect, story or technical, going for it. It's really a shame. Downsizing now finds itself in the ranks of other classics of 2017 like The Snowman and Gerald's Game, all with fantastic concepts and genuinely great things going for them, but fall flat on their face for just a few mis-steps. The first half-hour of this promises a fun and engaging satirical look at our current world with the introduction of a "solution" to man-kind's problems and jabs at popular culture. (The Leisure Land place is themed a lot like Disneyland, for example) There are good sequences here and there scattered mainly in the first half, but the movie, like, immediately changes it's interest from being about little people, and more about being a metaphor for America and immigrants. The second Damon arrives at an apartment complex that looks like a shitty Mexican place, topped off with graffiti and Spanish programming playing on a television, I felt like busting out laughing. Call me racist all you want, but holy lord, was this just hilarious, the mental gymnastics Alexander Payne was doing when writing this to justify some of this shit.
You might comment and say I'm just not getting or I hate it because of it's message, trust me, I'm not. I hate this movie because the fact they took this direction. I hate that they wasted such good potential with this. My father was actually looking forward to this and he thought this looked like an interesting comedy, but no, I'm going to have to tell him just a colossal trainwreck it actually is. I'm done. I'm not writing anymore about this. I need to stop going to see bad movies, but how?
Jason Zeldes directs a passion project about the lives of students who take a Shakespearean novel and adapt it to their own cultural understanding. Donté Clark introduces the movie by stating he didn’t think much of play Romeo & Juliet when he was at the age of 15; however, at his introduction of street violence and gun killings, by the age of 22, he understood how much the story related to his current lifestyle. With the talent group, RAW Talent, him and a group of other young people go about adapting the famous story, in the hopes it will send a message to the citizens of Richmond.
The movie is shot with an observational verité style, in that the director doesn’t involve himself with the content in the movie, outside parts with paragraphed text. All of the students tell their stories through interviews and on-site recordings, like raw unprepared videography, footage varying in quality. What I like about Romeo is Bleeding the most is it’s fast-cut, nicely capturing the uneasy and tension-filled environment the movie was shot in, and, how Ken Jaworowski from The New York Times puts it, “mimics the hip-hop and jazz-inflected rhythms of the student-poets.” What made it most effective for me, was it’s use of voice-overs from interviews over additional footage. There’s a number of great sequences that illustrate the gravity of a situation by using this technique, like the sequence when the Chevron plant blows and you hear voices play as footage of the incident happens. There was great editing here.
I will be honest, however, that I had no expectations for this at all and wasn’t interested in the topic the movie presented. Romeo & Juliet just happens to be my least favorite play written by William Shakespeare, and the idea of poor or unprivileged youth using poetry to fix their situation sounded like a pitch for another drama that everyone’s seen before. I just had no interest in seeing that story again. Luckily, Zeldes does manage to make a couple of intriguing sequences, mentioned previously. Another good one was when you find out Dante’s brother was shot and killed right as he got out of prison, and the scene plays out very seriously. There’s no music playing and only the sounds of typewriting can be heard as he’s documented that he was killed on the street. What the documentary needed was a little more of that. I appreciated that Zeldes wanted to get every side of the story, including the police, but the biggest struggle I had to overcome to get through the entire film was a lot of the undeveloped pieces in the middle, ultimately making large sections of the movie seem pointless. That made it difficult for me to get through the entire piece, already have the task of overcoming my disinterest in the bare concept.
What gave the finale a nice little bow was seeing the crowd enthusiastic about RAW Talent’s finished play and giving hope in the audience that the dire situation may be turned around. I could detail how I disagree politically with some of the arguments given, but the point of reviewing a movie like this is for it’s filmmaking. Romeo Is Bleeding does a decent job with it’s aesthetic raw quality and giving the viewer some great scenes, but overall, just feels like a mess at times. Watch it depending on how much you care about the topic.
Wrote this for Film Appreciation Class.
I went in expecting absolutely nothing and came out mildly enjoying it. I'll just get a few things out of the way before I reach my verdict. As a rompy heart-felt Pixar movie, it works at hitting all the notes. Take your family to see it, you'll all enjoy it. If you're of Mexican heritage, I'm sure you will absolutely love the movie, I think that much is clear. I don't think anyone's shocked when the box office for this is the highest in all Mexico history. I've had a long, personal, and almost battered-house-wife-type relationship with Disney. That corporation has done so much shit in the past decade that has infuriated me to the point of boycotting any of their media, including the popular theme parks. But now that I have a MoviePass, I have no excuse to not see every movie that comes out into theaters, so I figured I'd waste a few hours to form my own opinion. Ignoring the infuriating Frozen short that plays before-hand, Coco excels at tugging the heart strings, while simultaneously adding nothing unique or original to Pixar's line-up. I know, according to premiere critics, every story-line that is possible has been done already, but it strikes me that Pixar doesn't really try to hide their formula. I think the biggest sin Coco commits is how blatant it is when it uses these cliches. The young boy who wants more out of life, but his family refuses to let him cliche, the villain is revealed to the world via hidden camera cliche, the stranger protagonist meets turns out to be family-related cliche, and so on, and so on. Some may not mind these tropes, and I'm totally okay with it. Ignoring the tiresome and eye-rolling story patterns, Coco does manage to shine through and give us a couple of great little moments, muddled in the predictable story. The twist reveal and flashbacks towards the end of the second act are the most interesting, to say the least, and will give people flashbacks to Jessie's backstory from Toy Story 2. It's the one aspect of the movie that really makes it stick out, as well as the nicely-done final ten minutes. I won't spoil what these are, but they're good sequences. They're what raise my recommendation for Coco from below-average to it's worth seeing in theaters. It's not something I'd rush out to see, but there's no harm in going to see it.
I have a soft-spot (sort of) for Anna and Elsa, just because of how cute they are. But beyond their short-lived moments on screen, this special has almost nothing going for it. I assume Josh Grad is easy to have, because he's not doing anything big as opposed to Idina Menzel, and Olaf is a hot-selling toy, so he's always ready to do more Olaf shorts. One of the biggest things I actually hate about this short is it drives home that the special bond Anna and Elsa carried throughout their childhood was the fact they shared Olaf drawings and creations to each other. Just fantastic, the biggest thing I hate about the Frozen cinematic universe, is what connects Anna and Elsa's love. Whatever. At least this short will entertain the kids, I suppose. But I want to know who the fuck approved a 23 minute short before a feature-length movie. I'm guessing Disney had absolutely no faith in Coco, so they had to rope people into seeing it because Frozen is smacked right on the poster. Well, to be fair, they may have had faith in Coco, but didn't think people would willingly see it. There's even like a 30 second behind the scenes glimpse before the movie starts, that plays after the Frozen short, talking about the amount of work that went into the animation in Coco. They're really hoping people appreciate the work that went into it, really coaxing them. My advice? Reserve your seats for the theater online, then show up a half hour late. You'll be fine, trust me.
Goddamn, this movie has no right to be as boring as it is and also have a budget of 50 million dollars. There's a few nuggets of gold, some good and even great scenes here and there with combination of score and decent cinematography; but overall, I kept checking the time like every 10 minutes. Whenever I watch a movie, and I'm constantly waiting for the movie to just end, or I'm checking the time in boredom, the movie automatically gets a below average rating. The number one goal of any filmmaker should be to keep the audience interested. I was not interested throughout the majority of this. Nothing gripped me. There was no tension. The style just didn't lend itself to this kind of story. I don't know who looked at this final product and decided it would work in appealing to a mainstream audience. It's slothy with poor pacing, mediocre acting, half-decent music, amateurish camera work, and only a couple good scene set-ups. I can now say with full confidence I think Daisy Ridley is a bad actress...
I really don't know what else to say. Just don't bother with it. I'm going to go watch the original by Sidney Lumet now. Should be way more interesting and worthwhile. I need to get into the habit of just walking out of movies I don't like. I've never done it, but I need to start doing it.
Okay, here's a question to my followers. How do I rate a movie that's so shitty, it's enjoyable? Like, I had fun watching this, but I understood it's schlock. Once I get some comments, I'll lower or keep this score.
I never, ever thought I'd be here saying this, but I actually had a little fun watching Geostorm. Yeah, like, no shit. This was more fun than Independence Day: Resurgence and San Andreas, the last two big disaster movies to come out. I think what Dean Devlin understood over the last two attempts was to just have fun with the project. It's like he knew what he was doing was making shit, but said, "Fuck, just go all out with it." The disaster scenes are upped a few notches, they're crazy, loud, extreme, and laughably put together. This movie's all over the place for me. I'm not sure how to feel. Some parts of this movie are just straight-up bad, like not thought out well, yet some other parts I thought were competently done and nicely written, and other parts are so-bad-it's-funny. The movie's everywhere in terms of my enjoyment. I think there's actually some decent writing here and there, leagues above Independence Day: Resurgence, and other parts where the dialogue is laughably bad. I don't know if Devlin did this on purpose, but it's very interesting to say the least. The story is not original at all, it's borrowed heavily from previous disaster movies, even ones not produced by Roland Emmerich, but for some reason, I didn't mind most of the time. Maybe it was the character writing or order of sequences, but I didn't really get annoyed or frustrated with seeing the same plot again. There was some kind of flavor this time around I was actually getting into. It's not great writing, like I've said, but I didn't hate watching it. There's even a couple genuinely humorous moments, that actually landed, which shocked me. But more often than not, the movie serves as a shit fest that's fun. And I love that stuff. If you've followed me for some time, you know I enjoy shit that's fun. And that's what this is. It's popcorn entertainment and that's what Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin do best. Even Godzilla (1998) I didn't hate because it's enjoyable, though I know it's a crappy movie. There's been a couple movies like that this year, that I think are crappy movies, but fun, like The Great Wall and Kong: Skull Island. However, those have at least artistic merit to them, standing as solid movies, even if they're mindless popcorn flicks. We're at an age where it's really hard to rate movies, at least for me. How do you rate something of this nature? And what counts as so-bad-it's-fun and actually good? Kong: Skull Island I think is a well-enough written movie and competently directed movie that gets it well above shit-but-fun-tier, so that's not on the same level as Geostorm, even though both are just popcorn flicks. Geostorm is enjoyable because of it's shitty quality, so I think that's where we need to make the distinction here. This is getting really fucking confusing for me now, but I love this discussion. It just goes to show judging movies are not all about the rating, but the discussion. This is such a weird movie for me. I need to let it sit with me for a little longer, and I might update this post.
Do you guys think I enjoy disliking these movies? 'Cause I don't. I swear, I go into every one of these hoping I come out having had a good time, laughing and enjoying watching superheroes do marvelous things. But this is the third time this year I've been disappointed by a Marvel movie. I just don't get it anymore. Is there something wrong with me, or am I missing something in this movie? I really don't know. But as I was watching, I didn't laugh once, but other people around me were laughing, at presumably all the right points. I could tell when a moment was supposed to be funny, I could tell a joke was being attempted, but I just kind of sat there, not at all convinced. A lot of the humor just feels so flat, or simplistic. I didn't think any of the jokes were clever or original. Just like awkward dialogue or callbacks to previous Marvel movies. I think I only half-smiled at two jokes in the entire thing. One was at Steven Strange's place, where Thor puts his hammer (disguised as an umbrella), in an upstairs umbrella rack. At the end of the scene, he's downstairs ready to leave, he puts his hand out for his hammer to come back to him, and you just hear in the background glass shattering and things just getting destroyed. After a couple seconds of it, Thor just half-heartedly says sorry. At least that joke had a little bit of set-up to it. I know there's another one involving a callback to Loki and Hulk's encounter from The Avengers, but I don't consider it clever. Most audiences won't get the joke unless they've seen that scene from that movie. The only other scene I kind of smirked at was the Hulk bouncing a giant ball across the room and back, like that prison scene from The Great Escape, and I thought that was just a nice little touch. But outside that, none of the humor landed with me. I don't know where people are getting at that this movie is like hilarious and easily the best Thor movie. I mean, yeah, it's the best Thor movie, but is that saying much? The first two Thor movies were total garbage, and I actually think I'm not alone in saying that. The story in this movie could not get anymore cliche, with it's hero's journey arc. I think it's definitely the laziest written Marvel movie of this year. I wish we actually learned something about Cate Blanchett's Goddess of Death in this movie. There's like a half-explained backstory that she was banished or something and all traces of her and the real history of Asgard was erased, but that's about the extent of her character. Also, we don't know enough about her powers and her abilities. What weakens her? How powerful is she? We don't know. Check out this little scene from her introduction:
She's brought up to be like this ultimate powerful being that shocks audiences. I can hear the people watching the trailer now screaming, "Oh my god, she destroyed Thor's hammer! How's that possible?!" Yet, when we see the whole movie, the actual confrontation is very underwhelming. And we never really understand what can she do and can't? I'm still like confused on this. I get that she's more powerful than Thor, but is that it? I don't even know what kills her at the end of the movie. Getting stabbed by that fucking huge flaming monster? There were a few moments of a flashback we see of her fighting the Valkyries, and it's got this renaissance-painting like look to it, similar to the storybook in Wonder Woman, but that's really it. OH, and when she first arrives in Asgard, she murders to people guarding the gate, but randomly decides to spare the janitor that's standing by. Oh, and the guy states he's a janitor in a fashion I assumed was meant humorous, but it wasn't. But she spares him and makes him her executioner... because janitors make really good executioners, I suppose. And he just kind of like awkwardly follows beside her, and I'm still really fucking confused why she kept him. She's the Goddess of Death. Why does she need a fucking executioner? He does nothing the whole movie, and she could just do his job, as she shows off early in the movie. But his whole arc amounts to nothing. I don't even know if we saw him in the final scene. The whole movie just has so much lazy writing. It starts with Thor in a cage talking to a skeleton we see off-screen, but I was just thinking the whole time, "The only reason he's talking to this skeleton is so the audience can get caught up in why he's in the situation. When has Thor ever talked to inanimate objects like that?" It was just something I noticed. And the scene after that has some of the worst CGI I've seen this year. The flaming monster of whatever had terrible animations, it just looked so jarring whenever they'd cut from him back to Chris Hemsworth's live action footage. It even looked like the chains Thor was in was CG, maybe it was the lighting. Now, now, I don't have ill-will towards the director Taika Waititi, I've yet to see his previous movie, so let me list off at least a few positives. And that's the direction the movie sometimes has. At times, there are some really impressive elaborate shots, like the previously mentioned flashback sequence. And there's one scene with Thor and his hammer flying away from a giant serpent monster that was nicely put together with the silhouette lighting and fast movement. But at other times, the movie looks like hot garbage. I don't have all the footage at my disposal, but just for example at some of the bad direction, check out this clip:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw1T6KYM_4I
I swear, the blocking and camera choices are straight out of Attack Of The Clones, with that scene of Anakin and Obi-Wan talking in the elevator. As much as I like that film, same shit. But you know what's really funny, is I found Waititi actually admits the direction is lazy:
I love how he finds a hard time saying positives in that sequence. Just pointing out the background is all CGI. Something that's clear as day obvious. There's actually a lot of bad green-screen in this movie. One was so bad, I swear, I almost started laughing in the theater. It's when Thor's running down the bridge towards Asgard and I swear to God, I could see the black lines around Chris Hemsworth.
But, ugh, I don't really know what else to say anymore. Marc Ruffalo has almost nothing to do in this movie except spout jokes at times towards Thor, there's more comic relief characters, just like what you'd see out of Guardians Of The Galaxy 2, and Jeff Goldblum doesn't have as many scenes as I wanted. He was one of the better parts of the movie. I want to see more of him in future movies. I gotta admit, I got a kick out of seeing Doctor Strange again. Benedict Cumberbatch is always a treat to see, even if he didn't do jack shit in this movie and only served as a cameo. Also, they play Led Zepplin's Immigration Song twice in the movie. Why? I don't know, because Guardians of the Galaxy changed movies forever. And before people tell me it's Waititi's style to put jokes in serious moments, fine, but I don't think so. I've seen Marvel do this before, making a potentially dangerous and tense sequence silly. Not once was I on the edge of my seat during this whole thing, and I never feared for the main characters' lives. Even when Thor's home planet, Asgard, is blown up to smithereens, they make a joke about it.
I'm so not looking forward to Infinity War. I just don't get it anymore.
EDIT: I would almost give this movie a 7/10 or something just slightly above what I gave it. Marcus Nispel gorgeously directed this movie. Really great work all around with the design and look of the feature.
Definitely some likable elements and it's worth a watch, but it loses some of the haunting atmosphere the original had. That's not to say there's isn't tension in this movie, as there is quite a bit, and it follows the same idea of a psychotic area of Texas, rather than just one killer. However, the tone and execution are completely different. If there's one thing I have to give credit to this movie over the original is the characters are a little more believable to me. While Marilyn Burns and crew were great fun to watch previously, their characters had the depth and intrigue of walking cardboard cut-outs. That was one of the only complaints I had with the original, but it didn't matter, because it's atmosphere and setting is what made up for it. This time around, the atmosphere is slightly lost, but the gore, scares, and character development is upped a lot. Here's how I envision both of these movies. The original is the nightmare retelling of what the events were like. The remake is like the archival footage. The original wasn't very realistic in it's presentation or execution, making the film looking like a re-enactment, which worked. But now, in an attempt to update, the remake looks like real events transpiring in real-time. You get what I mean?
Just like with the Nightmare remake, some clever character write-ins were a nice bonus and expansion on the original's story, but unlike the Nightmare reboot, I don't know if enough was done here to fully warrant a remake. I still like it and appreciate all it's glorious chainsaw showmanship, but I don't think it's as great as the original. Still very good.
Oh boy, another movie I'm in the minority opinion of... or am I? I actually don't know this time, I think this movie has like a cult following or something. Which says a lot about this movie more than other horror remakes that are brought up. I've seen other people on here give excellent reviews explaining why this movie works more than what the common viewer gives it credit for, but I'll just share a couple random thoughts of mine.
This movie does not in any way tarnish the original movie or "ruin" what John Carpenter's movie created. I personally believe Rob Zombie took a run-of-the-mill slasher film, upped it a few notches, and tried to explore characters much further. I give Carpenter all the credit in the world for all he did for the horror genre; his music and movies completely revolutionized the medium, for better or worse. But what Zombie was able to bring was a little more humanity to the picture, yes, I'm actually saying that. The scene at the hospital where Michael Myers screams in his mother's face, like emotionally gutted me. Imagine your a mother, and you see this child, your son, that you've raised all your life to love and be a good kid, just murder someone right in front of you and scream in your face when you try to console them. Imagine the guilt and failure that goes on in her head. That whole sequence with the sirens going off and the slow-motion happening is one of the most brilliant scenes in a horror movie I've seen. Captivating and mesmerizing. Great work all around.
Zombie knew just all the right elements to make this unique, yet also play perfect homages to the original classic. I can understand this over-the-top white-trash style not working for some people, I agree with that, but it's hard to argue the amount of brilliance seen in this. It's one of the smartest horror remakes ever made. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Lumis? Come on, that not perfect casting? I might post some more thoughts later after I watch the four hour documentary on this Blu-ray, but I wanted to get things out. I wasn't sure how I'd dig this, but I'm really leaning towards loving it. Rob Zombie did a commendable job paying tribute while expanding the universe. In fact, I believe Zombie enhanced the original and the character.
I love that they even flat out mention Groundhog Day as a joke at the end of the movie. Nice little cherry on top of the cake. This movie was just badass. There's not a lot I can really complain about, actually, except for maybe one part dragging or a plot thread I thought was underdeveloped, but overall, not at all. From beginning to end, Happy Death Day is one of the funnest experiences I've had watching a movie in years. This really needs to become a classic like Krampus or other frequently mentioned horror flicks, and Jessica Rothe needs to have a career after this. Her talent she gave in this starring role was one of the most believable and raw performances I've seen from a horror protagonist since like Jamie Lee Curtis or Marilyn Burns. She was just absolutely-fucking-fantastic. She starts off as kind of a brat, and a bad person to her peers, but as the events unfold, a lot like Groundhog Day, she begins to make amends with her friends and family and change overall. Her father is mentioned throughout, him trying to call her every morning, and it's actually quite heartwarming to see her set things straight with him near the finale. There were a couple small details I liked that emphasized this thread. For example, at the beginning of the movie on the first day, her roommate makes her a cupcake for her birthday, but Theresa just throws the cupcake in the trash right in front of her. On the second, after the first kill, she just puts the cupcake on the dresser. On the third, she almost gets ready to eat it. There was some pretty clever writing that tricks the viewer into thinking the killer could be one person, but it's actually another. The ending was a little rushed with it's reveal, and that's the part where I mean underdeveloped, but I think it still works enough. Just like the protagonist, the movie doesn't spend too much time on this character, so the out-of-field reveal makes sense, to me at least.
Overall, just tons of extremely hilarious sequences that made me grin hard, especially the ones with Carter, played by Israel Broussard. I don't think I've smiled this hard watching a movie in quite awhile, all at the same time serving us with deliciously awesome horrific scenes. In one part, when Theresa is in a dorm room with one of her friends, who turns up the bass too loud, the killer starts stabbing him to death in the background while Theresa is distracted. She's on her phone, and she gets a text from a friend saying she hopes they both die, while the guy is being stabbed. Sorry, I just love little tie-ins like that. There's plenty more similar stuff written in, and I just had fun with that shit. I'd go as far to say I enjoyed this more than the recent outing of IT, which I did like. Horror has just been doing really well this year, and I'm glad it so is.
Shame. If you've seen ANY of the previous Saw movies, or have an IQ above 80, you'll see every twist coming a mile away. This almost feels like a Saw fan film, to be honest. It's lost that epic and convoluted feel the previous installments had, something I actually found enjoyment in. This is one of the better directed Saw movies, but certainly the weakest in terms of the writing, with the twist ending being the lamest and underdeveloped twist I've seen yet in the series. The mystery element is extremely predictable, and like I've said, if you know the plot elements from the earlier movies, you'll predict what happens, easily. For example, in the movie, the detectives and doctors are dumbfounded that the killer's blood matches up and is under the victim's finger-nails. even though, the killer's been dead for 10 years. I immediately remembered back what happened in SAW V, when Hoffman, one of the original killers, used another person's finger-prints to handle a body, pinning the blame on them. And guess what, that's exactly what happens here. Someone planted the original killer's blood under the finger-nails. Nice original twist, you got there, guys. The only reason I'd recommend checking this out on video are some of the kills, which are pretty cool, but there's nothing here that screams a theater experience. I went against judgment from others, telling me to not bother, but I went anyways because I'm a Saw fan, but I'm a little disappointed. Seeing Tobin Bell in the role was cool and some traps were nice, but just overall, lame.
For what it is, it's a good history lesson and introduction to the history of music in movie's history, going as far back to 1895 to explain how much score had an impact on the visuals of film. I got a kick out of seeing more obscure composers, a lot of whom I love, actually have a chance to talk about what they do in their profession. Hearing Christopher Young and Steve Jablonsky get the recognition they deserve made me smile a little. But aside from the self-congratulatory stance the documentary takes, I didn't actually get a whole lot out of it. Now, that's just a problem for me and me alone, since I'm an avid fan of movie music already, I didn't learn anything I didn't already know. If you're just getting into movies and their accompanying soundtracks, this is a good documentary to get your start. But if you know even just a little bit of the ever-growing change of film music, this might not be for you. There was no clear question or hard topics being tackled like I expected, so part of me felt a little empty after watching. I got to see this at a screening where the director did a Q&A session afterwards, so that was nice to at least hear from him a little. I applaud his efforts, but it's just above-average to me. However, big props for the James Horner tribute in the end credits. That was nice.
