I watched Battleship Potemkin last year when Russia started the war with Ukraine. Now, I watched A man with a movie camera hoping to gain a better understanding of this region by viewing it from a different angle. A region that is so close, so European and yet so far away. In Battleship Potemkin you learn a lot about Russia. This movie isn't as educative. I still enjoyed the historic pictures of a bygone era. Music is also great (watched the Michael Nyman version). It's not even a traditional movie. It's an eclectic mix of often isolated short scenes. I must stop saying this everytime I watch an old b/w movie, but: b/w looks fantastic. It's like the video or photo slideshow of your vacation you always tried to shoot but always failed to do. You need to be a special kind of avant-garde artist to produce such a movie. Some of the scenes could very well be Kraftwerk music video.
It's also a very Soviet movie. He pictures a lot of industry, heavy machines, means of mass transportation, modern tech, hard working men and women, proletarians.
I can't rank this movie by the usual standards. It's probably a 10 though. Simply for its style, its historic value and its impact. You should watch this movie once. I can't guarantee you will like it.
Maybe it’s because I watched this three hours after a funeral, but this made a ton of sense to me and resonated with me a lot.
I do wonder if there’s some kind of informational gap between the sub and dub (I watched the sub), because I’ve read a number of comments/reviews after the leaving the theater that claim certain aspects were confusing and disjointed. And in a number of cases (not all, but many), I feel like the movie actually did tell you what was going on, either in the literal dialogue or the visual subtext. There is definitely room for interpretation and the insertion of your own life though.
Ultimately this is a meditation on grief and moving on. People are not “boring” or “emotionless” when they’re grieving. Grief turns you into a shell, a husk, and you have to fight your way out. Sometimes while wrapped up in grief, you don’t want to do the right things, but you do them anyways because you know you have to. You might not do it with a smile on your face or a bounce in your step, but you do it nonetheless, because the ones you grieve for would want nothing less from you.
I never thought a remake would be on the same level of greatness and get that same uncomfortable feeling as the original. Both films should hold up today and that's the best thing ever.
Remakes (to me) can turn out in many different way's if you look at it's history of films. There are remakes that are known as classic and way better than the original. Films like John Carpenter's "The Thing" and the 1986 film "The Fly" that has been kept in everybody's hearts as one of the greats. But whenever there's good there's always bad. Remakes seem to everywhere now if it's horror, Sci-Fi, action or drama you can't escape of what I like to call it, "The Curse of the Remade".
But Nosferatu the Vampyre (in my opinion) is the best remake I've seen.
The atmosphere and it's slow build up of suspense is the top key things that made this movie kind of chilling at times. I was glued me to screen with those two supporting the film. That's what makes a great horror movie; no stupid and annoying jump scars, and no mindless blood and gore. Just a creepy setting and the atmosphere around the movie really hold up the film.
Klaus Kinski who played Nosferatu did one quite a performance in this movie. He got the character so perfectly well that it's like the actor is doing a small little tribute to Max Schreck original role in the 1922 film, and an awesome tribute it was.
Overall rating: Brilliant directing, the acting from everyone was great, the cinematography was some of the best I've seen, and the set designs was just perfect in this movie.
This is a full length documentary about the stars who aren’t stars, the backing singers. Anyone who loves music has heard them over the years on many, many records, hit or not, but not many of us can name them. This film strives to put this right and also to put the spotlight on a group of mainly African-American singers and how they coped with their talent and their lack of recognition.
The stories of the various backing singers across the running time of this film are fascinating, sad and funny but I was not really sure what message I was supposed to get from the meandering film. The music is the most important thing, yet nearly all but one the backing singers featured seemed to want to be a big star and have a solo career. Most of them tried but did not succeed. In the end they still had successful backing singing careers.
Sting, Bruce Springsteen et al add their views on film and everyone interviewed in the ‘business’ know that backing singers have great voices, great talent and deserve to be famous but to be successful as a pop-musicians talent does not always mean you will make it.
Thanks for that but non-in-the-know members of the general public having been saying that for years as tuneless, off-key and toneless ‘artists’ rack up hit after hit. Also when a ‘vocal contractor’, a job title never explained, gives us an anecdote about a record producer needing time to ‘tune-in’ the backing vocals, rather than just using backing singers, you know that pop-music really is a manufactured money-making business and little else.
The most balanced singer throughout the film is probably the most talented, Lisa Fischer, who just wants to sing and could not give a fig about fame, stardom and lorry loads of cash. I like her. This neatly brings me back to something I found out about this particular documentary post-viewing, to include it in a film review after I watched the film without knowing about it seems a cheat and bit churlish but it puts a big question mark over the whole integrity of the story telling.
Apparently, Darlene Love, one the singers featured heavily and frequently in the film, did not sing on tracks she claims she did and seems to have bent the truth to the point of breaking throughout the film. After filming, Morgan Neville was contacted and put right on some of the ‘facts’, he apologised but for some reason left all the ‘exaggerations’ in the final cut. Maybe because the story of an underdog with talent being manipulated by a now convicted murderer makes for better box-office than a singer who wants to be a huge star not quite making it.
There in a nutshell is the problem with this film. With some great archive footage, some great music business anecdotes, story of backing singers contributing to some the greatest music in the world regardless of fame and fortune could have been uplifting and inspiring, instead it seems more like a whinge-fest about how some of them are not famous and stinking rich despite their talent. Well the space at the top of the ladder is very small and the club they are in is very, very, big. Not only that but most of them did contribute to some great hit records, earn a living doing the thing they love, and seem to be well respected in the industry if not with the public. More upsetting is perhaps the saddest and probably most upsetting story of the film is fabricated. Excuse me if I do not burst into spontaneous tears and applause.
So once again we seem to have got a good film with an interesting narrative and interesting characters but as a truthful and insightful documentary not so much. Not the first time that the viewing public has been led by the nose to the truth, only the find out that ‘the truth’ is what the film maker specifically wants you to see and not actually might have been what is actually there to be seen.
I'm old enough to remember the original Hellraiser (1987). That was a true horror film. There were horrible people, doing horrible things. It left you feeling really quite disturbed about the worst aspects of human nature.
The follow-up Hellraiser 2 (1988) managed to recapture a small part of that. But after that it was downhill fast. The sequels were nothing but parodies.
Well, for some reason, Hulu decided to remake it.
Shamefully, the film fails on nearly every level. It's not well written (terrible dialogue) and poorly acted. There's little horror and you simply do not care about anyone or anything happening in it. It doesn't give you a reason to care either. The Cenobites are not scary, or grotesque looking... they just look like cheap make-up and some bad CGI.
Like the later Hellraiser films It has more in common with trashy slasher flicks than anything else. Poorly done ones at that.
As is common today they gender-switched the main role. Did it add anything? Nope. In fact, I keep hearing about what a good performance Jamie Clayton was as The Priest. I don't know what they were watching. There isn't a performance, it's literally all make up and some lines read out flat. Look at the originals: Pinhead's character is all about small, slow movements and looming dread. He's literally an overwhelming threat and you are the prey. Not in this one though.
Or look at the secondary villain. In the original it's Uncle Frank, who is an awful person who fully deserves his fate. Even in the end as he's pulled apart by the Cenobites... he's drawn to it, and much as he tried to run he still wants what the Cenobites offer. In this new version... there's none of that same grimy, disturbing look into subcultures. It's all clean, boring and badly acted.
Watch Hellraiser (1987) and Hellraiser 2 (1988) and stop there. They did it better on much smaller budgets.
Enter the Void. This is definitely one of the most original movies I've ever seen. The entire movie is like one giant trip.
You experience the world through the eyes of drug dealer who gets killed, and after he dies, you wander the Earth as his soul, watching the drama unfold between the characters whose lives were affected by this tragedy. The actinng from the main character and Paz de la Huerta were great as well as many of the supporting actors.
The cinematography was fantastic with many shots that made me think "How in the hell did they accomplish that?" Time and effort was definitely put into this movie to make it as fluid and trippy as possible. I have to of course talk about the use of colors in this movie. The director did a great job to use color as much as possible to not only contrast the situation the characters were in but to also match with the emotions being felt and the create a sort of ethereal vibe to the entire movie. Each choice the director made for color was meaningful and very welcomed on my part.
It also has one of the best opening credits of any movie ever. This is a must see.
I'm not crazy about conceptual/abstract art in general. My problem with that is that it always feels like what you'd be doing for yourself, not the audience, so you can make sure the story is told in a new and interesting way. But every once in a while something like that really works, and here is one of them.
The weird jumps for characters in this actually helps tell the story like what you might go through in that death phase. Your mind is not controlled by logic and physical limitations all the time. If you think about it like a dream, this is very similar. You never question how you suddenly got to some totally different location. You just go with it and live the moment you're in.
That's why I love this movie. As a depiction of what going through death might be like, this film does it so well. I'll admit, the beginning starts just ok, but I love the second half a lot. That's where we see differences in embracing our 'main' character.
Certainly check it out if you haven't seen it, but just make sure you're in the right mood. I don't think this is a 'chill out after a hard day's work' movie.
This is great! I loved it!
'Nightmare Alley' is a superb watch! I particularly enjoyed the beginning and end, which are truly excellent; the middle part isn't as strong, but is still top notch in its own right. I love the dark atmosphere it sets from the get-go, the sound design is outstanding - some bits are so striking and I love it! It has a quality, engrossing story to boot.
Bradley Cooper leads the cast with quality, though he isn't even the sole standout of the film. He is joined by a whole host of terrific performers: Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Richard Jenkins, David Strathairn ... I could go on, simply phenomenal casting! I wanted more of them all, and yet felt I got the perfect amount too.
The 150 minute run time went by incredibly quickly for me; if I hadn't known it was on for that long, I would never have guessed its length to be anywhere near that. It's a slow burn, but a slow burn done tremendously. Guillermo del Toro - this is the first film of his I've seen - & Co. did a super job, I have no complaints at all. I was toying for ages between a 9 or a 10 rating, it just about creeps its way into the latter.
Just brilliant. Go watch!
Highly anticipated as we would all like to know what condition the man is in. That he isn't in daily pain and was it the right decision to keep him alive after such an accident.
This tells us nothing. We get many indirect comments that infer his state but nothing direct or concrete. What is inferred is that he is in a very poor state of health - and personally, I think the decision to keep him alive in those early moments after the accident would appear to be dishonourable to a strong, successful, powerful man like him...
As a documentary, this isn't Senna. There are many liberties taken with the truth of circumstances around his racing decisions. We all know he was a nasty racer and would rather crash to win than allow a competitor the rightful chance.
It does a reasonable job of humanising him. Gives a nice insight to his marriage. But the constant economies with the truth - for the bits where I knew the colour - are tiresome.
It was a shame he had the accident he did. If he passes in the next 12 months as whatever palliative care he is being given is withdrawn, I sincerely wonder if this is an honest enough tribute to the man...
6/10
My dear Martin Scorsese, once again you prove in here why are you one of my favourites.
In The King of Comedy we follow Rupert Pupkin an obsessive fan of the very well known Jerry Langston a tv host and comedian that has a famous tv show. Rupert's daily life is all around Langston. He dreams about becoming one day like him. His goal is to be admired as a great comedian and he wants Langston to help him to get there.
The study of the character is amazing in here. Rupert is a lonely man, deep inside he is very sad, although he shows to be a very secure and happy man to everybody else. That's what makes this film into a fantastic masterpiece! Trying to understand certain behaviours of the human mind is not easy and nowadays the "celebrity obsession" is still present in our culture and there are people that are capable of doing anything for a moment of fame. But this is not in fact the main theme of this film. Deeper questions are related with it.
Without spoiling much there's one particular scene almost at the end of the film, Rupert's act at the tv talk show, that pretty sums up the whole film. Martin Scorsese was not only trying to show how the world of fame works but also, and most of all, what leads a man to a desperate situation. Troubled childhood and bad experiences in life may change some of the weakest minds and lead them into craziness.
When I was younger I used to watch a lot of Jerry Lewis films, both of my parents are big fans of him. His films are hilarious (I need to rewatch some of them btw). But the thing that most intrigued me was the fact that I already knew that Jerry Lewis would have a serious role in this film and not his usual comical tone that I already had seen. I was very curious about seeing this other side of him and I can say that he was great!
Some comedic actors turn out to be pretty great in dramatic roles. Jerry Lewis plays the arrogant scumbag that is tired of the spotlight. He is used to deal with a lot of guys like Rupert every day and treats his fans with disregard and he can't tolerate them.
Sandra Bernhard gives also a great psychotic performance as Masha, Rupert's friend that is also obsessed with Langston.
Martin Scorsese did a clever choice by choosing one of the most claimed comedy actors to play the role of a cynical comedy entertainer. But the guy who really shines in this film is Mr. Robert De Niro, what a magnificient performance! He perfectly portrays a person that is mentally unstable. Rupert lives in total isolation, he fantasizes all the time with situations at are real in his brain, he made himself believe in the lies that he created in his head.
No doubt, The King of Comedy is another masterpiece done by one of the finest man in the business.
One might guess that it is a no-brainer to rate this movie a 10/10, however, for me it wasn't. The reason is that Tolkien is one of my favorit authors of all time. I've read everything that he ever published, and also everything that he didn't but that was published posthumous. This includes letters, and scripts, essay-like writings where he just describes how certain islands look like, or how certain plants look like, family trees, etc.
My favorite book, by the way is the original release of Narn i Chîn Húrin, which is a loose collection of chapters that did not really fit together and that missed some chapters - in Germany at least it was released as single book, in England/America it is part of the Unfinished Tales. Recently (2007) his son Christopher Tolkien edited that story into a finished tale and released it as new book under the title "The Tale of the Children of Húrin" (which until now I haven't read because I am really content with the J.R.R. Tolkien-Version).
But I digress. What I tried to point out is, that while being his famous work, I think "The Lord of the Rings" is one of his lesser works, with his best being those about the early times (which are really unfilmable). Still being a fan of Tolkien I've read Lord of the Rings several times and some of my favorite parts are the first encounter with the woodland elves, as well as the adventures in the Old Forrest and of course Tom Bombadil - non of which appeared in the movie. Instead, you get the feeling, that Frodos travel to the prancing poney is a days jorney (it isn't, and in the book it takes months to prepare and further months to reach), and that meeting Aragorn and going on to Rivendale is another day or twos journey (again it itsn't) - all in all it takes 9 months from Gandalf telling Frodo about the Ring to the journey of the Fellowship starting in Rivendell. And the time between Bilbos birthday and Gandalf returning from his research about the ring is 17 years, rather than the same evening (what some people actually believed after watching this movie).
So while watching it for the first time in cinemas I felt totally rushed through the story, I missed important parts in the book, and instead Peter Jackson added things that never happend, e.g. all the scenes with Arwen (Arwen in the books is a sidenote, that Tolkien takes when finishing the third book and explaining what happend to all the characters of the book, after they disband). And also Galadriel getting all blue-greenish ghostlike. And I hated, the soupy romantic scenes "I choose a mortal life. - You cannot give me this. - It is mine to give to whom I will. Like my heart." ....
So, even though I hated it, befor it came out to cinemas I did buy tickets for two shows at once, one with German dubbings and on the next day in original Language. And at second viewing, while knowing what to expect, I liked it a bit better - still being angry of course, I had time to take into account all the little things. And of these, the movie has plenty, such as using the Rings engravings in Black Speech as background song at the Council - something only true fans of the book would recognize - as well as adding parts of Bilbos journey (the stone Trolls), or the Lore of Middle Earth with Aragon singing about Beren and Luthien. Some things are so well hidden, that even hardcore fans will have a hard time recognizing them, for instance when Boromir dies the music uses elvish singing using English quotes from the book. So we find references to all of Tolkiens other works, showing that Peter Jackson has read them all and understood their importance and relationship to the Lord of the Rings-Story. He also wanted Christopher Lee in his Cast, because Lee is famous for being a Tolkien fan, and at own admission reads books by Tolkien every year; furthermore he was the only one in the crew to have met and spoken with J.R.R. Tolkien in person, which is why his input was valued highly - most of the scripts where rewritten daily to incorporate such input, and even Tom Bombadil was to have an cameo which in the end they couldn't shoot. Besides we have homages and cameos hidden all over the movies, paying tribute to famous Tolkien artists as well as people who have had any connection with Tolkiens works (Ian Holm voiced Frodo Baggins in the 1981 radio series, many scenes where taken straight out of Ralph Bakshis 1978 animated Lord of the Rings moive, etc.)
These are enourmous levels of detail, and once you get over the fact, that the Lord of the Ring movies are not 1-to-1 adaptions of the book (which is impossible to do) you will actually realize that the adaption per se is pretty darn good. Everything you see, meets your expectation, there is always the highest amount of detail, even all the little things matter, nothing seems arbritary. A lot of craftsmanship was put into the movie - they use CGI only where absolutely neccessary and if used, it is extremely good. But hordes of orcs are masked extras, weapons have been forged, a lot of carpenters, gardeners, mansons, blacksmiths, landscapers, etc. employed to create middle earth. The score is one of the greatest in the last years, with a number of themes that all have their single purpose (we have the theme for the wraiths, the theme for Gondor, the theme for the hobbits, a theme for the fellowship, one for Gollum, etc); in the end, listening just to the score, when closing the eyes you can see the entire movie in your head!
The acting of course is also great, everyone was put through a lot, by having to learn languages such as different Elvish languages (Quenya and Sindarin), dwarfish language and orcish language (which all exist! Tolkien was a philologist, and in one interview he said, that his stories are just a side product as any good language mus have it's story of origin - so in the end, what he really did was develop at least 6 languages with all their words, pronounciations, grammatic rules and writing systems!), they had accent coaching, Gandalf for instance talks in the same accent that Tolkien did!, they had to learn to fight and to ride, etc. And it is all turned into perfection, nowhere is it half-hearted. The scenes and locations are great, the camerawork is beautiful, all in all it is a good movie in every aspect.
I've ended up watching the movie 6 times in cinemas, then I got a copy of the movie and watched it for half a year nearly every weekend at least once, until the official home release of the cinema version of the DVD, and half a year later, I of course got the extended cut, and watched that at least as many times as I did the DVD. So to sum up: It is my most favorit, most often watched movie - even today I am not tired of watching it, altough I nowadays only watch it once every 1-2 years. If compared to other movies I wouldn't say it is the best movie ever, because of several reasons: First and foremost it is an adaption, and therefore not an original work, which I think is an important factor - I wouldn't know if I was a fan of the movie if I never read Tolkien or disliked him - then and only then would I be able to judge the movie without prejudice. Also - I am a big fan of all the works so I get a lot of the little hints, which to me are a "wow. how cool is this"-moment. But that is just me (and some other hardcore fans), but to the general audience these little acts of greatness that influence my judgement go unnoticed. In addition to that, a movie that has so much to tell and three overlength movies to do so, escapes the boundaries of a traditional movie, i.e. to bring across a story, emotions, and a message, to make the audience meet new people that they like and that they understand, in just under 2 hours. That, I think, is a hard job to do and a reason why most movies might be "okey" but only a few are great.
So is it the best movie ever made? Certainly not, although it deserves to be listed beside those. It is however the best adaption I've ever encountered, it is the greatest, most fan-friendliest movie that takes into account everything available to that fictional universe and it is one of my alltime favorites and the best tribute that could have been paid to the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.
So I watched this 2 weeks ago and I'm still stunned by it.
It really deserves to be in IMDb's Top 10!
During the first half I thought "Hmm just as simple as that - this won't be in my top 10".
But then the shoe was on the other foot & then it turned again, and then again, ... and the ending was a bit different as I thought which I really liked :)
I loved the camera work - there were little moments of ego-perspective and sometimes the camera was placed little beside & above an arm holdig a gun pointing at the rival - which was perfect. Considering this was made in 1967 blows my mind - proof what a great director Sergio Leone was!
It's written pretty damn good, even that in the first 10 minutes nobody said a word ^^
It was all just eyes & footsteps, eyes & footsteps :D
It actually felt like a Quentin Tarantino production - I am very certain that his works were inspired by this!
There are just a few movies that didn't let me go afterwards & this is one of them.
I was whistling the soundtrack for days :)
So to all the 186 trakt users who have this on the watchlist I say:
Go for it - it's awesome!
“Life's a dream. In dream you can't make mistakes. In dream you can be whatever you want.”
‘To The Wonder’ is a movie directed and written by Terrence Malick. However the movie will always be known to me as Roger Ebert's final review. His points are clear and thought-provoking, even if I don’t always agree with him. I loved his take on Malick and I bet Malick would have as well. So this gave me more of a vivacious viewing experience.
While I wouldn’t recommend it to a conventional audience, as it lacks any structure that people who haven’t be exposed to his work would find insufferable. And it’s something that I can’t see myself watching again, but it’s a movie that explains nothing, yet shows everything.
A draining, but rewarding experience. When I mean rewarding - like something you reflect on in the next few days. There’s so much beauty on screen with the beautiful score and beautiful people. Bringing it all to life through the lens of Emmanuel Lubezki amazing camera work. The little dialogue didn’t distract from the great performances that was both playful and grounded.
At times it loses itself within the wonder. A bubbly and a very current movie that can be hard to stomach. Malick seems more interested in capturing moments than anything else. There is a story, just small and simple enough for an explosive impact.
It’s not for everyone and I'm sure that Terrence Malick is perfectly fine with that.
David Lynch's movies are not easy to review, in fact I think words can not describe Surrealist "movies" generally speaking. Yeah I put that by purpose in brackets because they are not like ordinary movies where you expect a clear storyline, character development, an appropriate soundtrack and so on, but here you really have to feel them and be in the correct mood, have enough concentration and be open minded and patient.
You can ask ten people what Eraserhead is about and you'll get ten different answers, so there is no really 'get it' or right or wrong rather a lot room for interpretation and conjecture.
Anyway Eraserhead is David Lynch's first feature-length film after a row of short movies which are exactly what you think they are, really Lynch-like. We find ourselfs trapped in a black and white, dystopian world at an unkown time and follow the Story of Henry Spencer (Jack Nance) who impregnates his girlfriend and she gives birth to a malformed baby. overchallenged and desperate by that situation she leaves Henry with the baby alone.
That's basically the main storyline and everything that is obvious and clear, adding more to that would be kind of a spoiler and is open to everyone's imagination anyhow.
The Invisible Man filmed by James Whale two years after Frankenstein was way ahead of it's time, I was really blown away by the special affects who easily still hold up even over 80 years later!
The Story follows the young and intelligent Dr. Griffins (played by Claude Rains in his American Film Debut), so to say the 'Monster' of this film, who discovered the secret of invisibility and tested it on himself. The Problem is that he don't know how to reverse the power, so he abalienate himself to an faraway tavern, his face swathed in bandages and his eyes obscured by dark goggles, to exeperiment. His appearence naturally arrest attention and slowly the byeffect of his self-attempt become clear: he gets evil and superior, killing more and more people and sees him eventually getting chased by the police and villagers...
To be honest I watch a lot of older movies and they mostly haven't aged very well or can't be viewed by 'casual' movie watchers today, like others movie classics of that era (for example "The Mummy" or even "Dracula") but this easily holds up and is a lot of fun even today. Like I said the special effects really stand out and are really impressive. Besides that is the atmosphere, camera, excessive characters, slapstick, story and even action very well done, definitely one of the best movies of 1933.
I remember first watching this one in a modern film class. I was not exactly excited to get into it, and I didn't expect anything good. If you simply described this type of movie to me, I'd avoid it. "Angels wander around the city watching people live." Wow, I'm so on the edge of my seat...
Then it started up and I was quickly drawn fully in. Somehow the Germans really know how to make an abstract film that I enjoy. The little bits of info we get on people's train of thought is balance well. We move from an old man remembering a life and focused on one goal. Then you hear a young person in their 20s all over the place with the multitude of interests/concerns.
The use of color is a great way to easily distinguish between a human's view and an angel's view. The black and white is so much calmer, separated without a multitude of options. But when you're a human you get so many more aspects to life. This simple change literally helps you naturally switch sides as the viewer.
Oh, and Peter Falk is in this. PETER FALK is in this. He is so great in everything. This is a guy that would be awesome to hang out with at any time. Is he even acting? I think he's just naturally that cool.
Talk about a movie giving you mixed feelings. Before seeing Halloween III, I knew one thing…neither Michael Myers or Jamie Lee Curtis was going to be in it…so the real question was…how was it even a Halloween movie? Doing a little research, I discovered the creator of Halloween thought it would be a wise choice to do the same thing as American Horror Story and switch up the stories. A new Halloween tale every year. Well, you know the problem with that right? It’s not even the fact that people love Michael Myers, it’s the fact that you had two movies with him back to back…and then this. I have extremely mixed feelings about Season of the Witch – so let’s get into it.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is not about Michael Myers, nor is it really about any witches…it’s really about androids. I’m talking full on cybernetic organisms. A doctor ties the death of a patient to a factory that produces popular Halloween masks. As they look to uncover that death, more deaths occur, and they are all seemingly linked to this factory and company Silver Shamrock – and the mystery of what this company is trying to do is unpredictable, believe me.
I think I have a handle on what went wrong here – and the fault lies exclusively with pre-production. First of all, you shouldn’t call this a Halloween movie, and if you do, you can’t say it’s Halloween 3, because people are expecting Michael Myers and Jamie Lee Curtis. All you’re doing there is making people mad when they see the movie. Second of all, you shouldn’t call this Season of the Witch either, because witches play no part in this film . There is magic, but it’s magic taken from a Stonehedge rock. The rest of the movie is strange, creepy, mysterious android humanoids. Which, by the way, aren’t bad. Not at all.
If you went to a friend’s house and they made you watch this movie but didn’t tell you what it was called, there’s a good chance you’ll love it. In fact, if they released this under a different name altogether, it might be its own classic horror film. As it is now, it’s ruined expectations and false advertisement. That’s where my mixed feelings come from, because as a movie on its own without any labels, this is a fine horror film that had me invested from the get go. The only actual complaints I have about it is the decision to have the lead play a doctor instead of the obvious – a cop. He looks and plays the part, a doctor doesn’t make a ton of sense, nor furthers the story. I would also say the film lacked certain motive towards the end, but that’s not a deal-breaker, either.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch is incredibly creepy and disturbing – facts that nestle since the beginning and flourish as the film goes on. It’s creative gore was unique and never overdone. Just the sight of these android humanoids chills you to the bone, and the end game teased throughout the movie is brave and bold – altogether creating a horror flick that would be remembered for a long time if it weren’t for its poor, poor foundation and promotion practices. It’s not a movie that should be a part of the Michael Myers collection, nor should anyone say it’s a witch movie either. It’s simply a decent movie that has no real title in my books. Check it out and let me know what you think!
Sorry folks but this one didn't go well for Marvel. I don't even know where to start. Acting was average, more like below average. Screenplay was as much ordinary as it could be. No surprise here. CGI was OK but it's somehow expected from Marvel. But I totally didn't like the idea of Wakanda. Hidden city in the center of Africa with tons of technology and advanced weapons and systems and so on. But how the hell did they build all of that? No explanation. It just happened. Yes, they have Vibranium, but they don't sell it. In fact they never did and for whole world they are just a bunch of shepherds and farmers. So where did they take all that money to build empire like this? I don't like movies without explanations and this is one of them. Almost nothing has been told about Vibranium whatsoever. Oh yeah, it's some super thing from the universe capable of anything. That's all the explanation you get. There are too many clichés we have already seen too many times. And we have to see them again. One example: I challenge someone for a fight because I want to kill him. And when I have the chance to kill him, what would I do? Kill him or throw him down from the cliff to the water where he can survive? But enough. If you hesitate if to watch this, I can recommend not to waste your time. Wait for the Avangers where you can also see the Black Panther. You won't miss anything if you miss out this movie.
Nothing to say really besides: that’s how you do it!
This has without a doubt the most impressive stunts of the franchise, and it really knows how to use its characters and challenge them. There’s a lot of propulsive energy, lush cinematography and great editing. Lorne Balfe does a great Hans Zimmer impression, and Chris McQuarrie does a great Chris Nolan impression. Alright maybe I’m oversimplifying there, because I have to commend McQuarrie for doing another stylistic reinvention of the franchise, the cinematography and general feel aren’t just that of Rogue Nation 2.0. I’m not even sure if the constant evolution of this franchise comes from a place of creative ambition or commercial opportunity, but at least it keeps the films fresh. Some of its core elements will always remain the same, however. For example, the plot’s once again just a vehicle for all the juicy stuff. You could call it out for being generic or basic, but they find so much creativity and fun in these tropes that it becomes very entertaining (intrigue, the mask sequences, the craziness and constantly rising intensity). Sure, there’s a very predictable twist at the end of the second act, but more often than not, it managed to surprise me. Henry Cavill is a great new addition, bringing back Rebecca Ferguson was the best choice they could’ve made, and Pegg & Rhames remain the reliable anchors that add some heart & humour. It’s all exceptional stuff, it could very well go down as the best action franchise in history if the next films stick the landing.
9/10
This movie has been in my library for a long time. Unwatched.
I prejudiced this movie too much.
Why? Because I thought, it is a movie about a boy who's getting in trouble, and finds himself on a small rescue boat on the ocean with a tiger. And the tiger. is getting his very best friend, they r gonna survive and: HAPPY END.
A Boy.
A Tiger.
On a boat.
Before watching this movie I thought, okay, this might get REALLY boring. Well I did not got bored at all! There was so much happing all the time.
I do not want to spoiler, but I loved the ending as well. Not the real big Hollywood - Ending where everyone is happy.
Stupid plot. Well, it wasn't.
When you watch this movie, you will get funny scenes (especially in the beginning), and really good actors.
You get stunning pictures and I do not mean the tiger by that. Sure the tiger / animals were GREAT, but I loved the pictures around the boat really much.
Life of Pi was one of the best movies I have seen this year... and it is October right now ;)
8/10
There are plenty of reviews of this film, so here are a few spoiler free heartfelt words of my own, which I hope will help those decide to watch this movie, without worry...
It has been 24 hours since watching the 'Blade Runner' sequel and I still have the same feeling of utter joy as I did walking out of the cinema yesterday. I was so happy that I actually cried, because after 35 years I had finally found my perfect score 10/10 movie. When you see a film that affects you so emotionally that you have tears rolling down your cheeks, then I believe you are witnessing something very special indeed.
True, I am probably biased. The original 1982 'Blade Runner' is my second favourite film of all time - a cult classic that made Ridley Scott in to one of the most respected film makers alive today. The sheer wealth of ideas, the photography, the visual special effects, the sets, the tension, the story, the music and the acting all come together with a passion that, for me, was film making at its' finest.
Hence, when I heard that a sequel was planned, my heart sank. Please, leave it alone, I thought. However, my reservations were slowly pushed away when I heard that most of the team that made the original were on-board to make the sequel. Then, after it was announced that Denis Villeneuve was directing, my confidence grew even more. Alright, let me keep my fingers crossed and believe... which was literally how I was in the cinema yesterday. The lights went down, the music started and...
...within 2 minutes I had goose bumps on my arms and I knew it was going to be fine.
I am here to tell you now that this movie delivers on every level. The pedestal was very high indeed and everyone involved with this sequel should be extremely proud with what they have achieved.
'Blade Runner 2049' is respectful, powerful and smart. The director knew he had a tall order and he manages to bring his style to the next level, creating a science fiction masterpiece.
There were moments when I did not blink for fear of missing something, moments when I was gripping my hand with tension, moments of utter wonder at the visuals, moments of shock and moments of surprise. I was pulled in to this movie like no other I have seen and the 3 hours it lasted was no hardship at all for me... in fact, I didn't want it to end.
Granted, I was sitting in the best seat in the one of the best cinema's in the UK with IMAX and it really helped to literally immerse you in the film. The quality of the picture was simply stunning and the sound was ground shaking without any distortion... and 'Blade Runner 2049' deserves the best possible screen and audio you can buy.
This movie has been crafted with love and skill.
This movie was worth the 35 years wait.
This movie is the sequel we all wanted and hoped for.
This movie is a perfect 10/10 for me and I hope that you all enjoy it as much as I did and will do, again and again.
"I always told you. You're special. Your history isn't over yet. There's still a page left."
Just got back from Blade Runner 2049... Holy Shit! That was awesome. Denis Villeneuve can do no wrong in my eyes after this and Arrival.
I don't want to get into the story too much as it's honestly a better thing to go into this "sequel" with minimal direct knowledge of the sequel's plot (via reviews and such). However, being familiar with the original movie and watching the 15-20 minute anime short Blade Runner Black Out 2022 (made by the director of the anime "Cowboy Bebop") are definitely recommended imo especially as the anime short fills in some holes about the "Black Out" event that is touched upon in this new movie a few times.
As for the movie itself, it is defined by fantastic direction/editing, story and acting. The themes of discrimination between humans and Replicants, what defines humanity, and what is truly "real", standout in this film even in many of the tiny subtle moments. A fantastic performance by Ryan Gosling is without a doubt the standout in and drives this film, to the point where it almost essentially devolves into a single-man epic at times (of course, in a good way). I wish that there could have been a bit more Harrison Ford, but honestly that is just the homer in me talking. In terms of the actual story and flow of the film, his presence was handled beautifully as a perfect supplement to the movie and the more important story at hand (unlike a few of his more recent reboot/remake cameos).
The runtime is a bit long at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but don't let that deter you. I honestly never felt that bored or overwhelmed by it. A few beautiful action scenes and some atmospheric sprawling set pieces are interspersed among the emotional core and chilling dialogue that drive the film to give it a great pace. I could have watched this movie all day.
This is definitely an easy 9/10 for me at minimum. Once I get a little more time, I'm definitely go in for another rewatch (hopefully in XD/IMAX 3D). I also liked how the ending was handled very tactfully, leaving room for the possibility of a sequel, but not hammering it down our throats like it was rebooting a new cinematic universe. I pray that we don't have to wait 35 years for the next one though...
A little disappointed at first. Then more disappointment. I think it got such a good reputation because the transformation at the time was amazing. The script seems clunky, it doesn't flow at all, and the dialogue is either too camp or unnatural to fit the movies look when it attempts to be moody. It destroys any atmosphere. Overal the dialogue has a dumbed down and unoriginal feel.
The main actor, as well as some others, are really poor. They don't get the feelings across at all. Making scenes pointless. The scenes after a while feel like poor set pieces. After seeing the pub with the pentagram a few times a I begin to wonder if the movie was a joke. The idea that the main charcater thinks he main be mad is completely pointless as we all know he's a werewolf. But that's the imagination of John Landis. The plots doesn't go anywhere interesting either. I think the transformation is good. The part when he tries to insult all that's English... Embarrassing. He warns his love interest to stay away be a use he's dangerous. It's still daytime. Then rest of the movie is awful.
I don't mind cheesy scripts but this also tries to be serious and it never succeeds with any. No atmosphere or suspense to feel scared and not funny enough to be a comedy. Aged bad.
So, I watched 'Victoria' and I have mixed feelings about it. For those of you who don't know, 'Victoria' is a German heist movie filmed all in one take - quite the impressive selling point if you ask me. Credit where credit is due, this film is nothing short of an achievement. The level of planning, timing, and coordination that it took to make this one-shot movie is absolutely awe-inspiring. There were several shots in which the camera was behind a ledge, and when the camera moves up to see what's behind the ledge, in the background, we see an action taking place at that exact moment. It's moments like those that really show that talent involved in making this film.
Now, although this ambitious single-take selling point is extremely impressive, it is just one aspect of the film. And as much as I loved and enjoyed the movie, there were a few aspects that were kind of lacking - one of those aspects being post-production audio. The film had a good soundtrack, and for the most part I didn't mind the extra music being there. But in one scene, instead of the music accompanying the sounds in the film, it literally replaced them. All of a sudden, at a very unfitting moment, the film decided that what the characters were saying wasn't really important. It kind of seemed like the music was only there as a cover-up. Maybe one of the actors flubbed their lines, maybe they couldn't fit the mic guy in the elevator; it just seemed really weird and out of place for the characters' voices to suddenly be muted.
Closer to the middle of the movie, we hear this inexplicable post-production nose-breathing sound. It happens three times in the span of less than fifteen minutes and then never happens again the entire movie. The main character's in a vehicle and all the sudden we can hear this really loud breathing. My initial thought was, "Is that the cameraman?", followed by, "Oh, maybe there's someone in there with her." Then she gets out of the vehicle, and a few minutes later the same thing happens again. It happens when the camera moves closer to her face and then stops when it moves away - At which point I think, "Oh, it's just a really bad foley to accentuate how intense this is for her." But then the third time it happens, the camera's nowhere near her and she shouldn't reasonably be making those noises. It's confusing, distracting, unfitting, and completely unnecessary, And all it would have taken to fix it would be to just not add it into the movie.
Later there's a sleeping baby in a crib. Later on, the camera's not looking at the baby and we hear it screaming and crying; and within seconds, as the camera looks back towards the baby, it is sleeping again, making it obvious that it was just a poorly done sound effect. Again, something that easily could have been fixed by just not adding it into the movie. And last but not least, the absolute worst culprit of post-production audio cheating was the piano scene. With the short clip of her playing piano in the trailer, it left me thinking one thing: if what she winds up playing is actually impressive and complicated, then that'll add a lot to the movie. I mean, if it takes a certain level of coordination and you fuck it up, then you have to start the whole movie over. So this was a scene that I was particularly looking forward to. And unfortunately it is some of the worst fake piano playing ever. You realize that you actually need to press down on the keys for it to make noise, right? This scene clearly only exists to impress the audience by having us think that she's actually playing, so having it cheated this poorly is kind of disappointing. And the way that this scene pretends to be doing something impressive is just misleading and dishonest.
Another issue that I had with this movie is that these are the stupidest characters ever of all time. Not going to spoil anything, but there are moments in this film where the characters are so stupid that they become unrelatable. And then if something bad happens to them, all I can think is, "Well, what did you think would happen?" Still, for the most part, this was a very entertaining and well executed movie. Every single performance on screen was absolutely fantastic, and that, combined with the pressure of not really wanting to mess up your lines, had me impressed, to say the least. Yes, it's flawed. But I think its achievements outweigh those flaws, so I would recommend checking this one out and seeing for yourself.
An out of the box character driven movie with amazing performances all over. The movie is carried by the philosophical debate about (the hypocrisy of) how society is raising and viewing kids, so for the ones not interested in some deeper themes this movie will fall flat or could even be misunderstood. It is not so much a critique on society as it is thought provoking, and you might end up somewhere in the middle of the two positions of the argument. You could argue both against and in favour of the main character (played by the always amazing Viggo Mortensen) where every character in this movie has been written and portrayed as realistic as they can be.
At its core the movie is about parenting, education and the way society places itself superior to the outcast, and how the outcast always has to fight these conformist systems. Since (western) education and way of life has almost become a religion in itself, it isn't easy to live in (or raise your kids in) when you disagree. Something this movie illustrates the best in its more extreme moments.
Its runtime is a bit longer than you'd think necessary, however the slow pacing of the movie makes room for the rather big cast to breathe a little and not hastily skip over the decision points or thought process of the characters. It rotates intense emotional moments with moments of light heartedness and world building. This makes time for actually taking the audience along with the thoughts of the people that have the most development.
Oh and the cinematography is surprisingly well done too. I found myself both laughing and almost tearing up in 1 single shot. The emotions are very well captured and the use of light, costumes and props is exceptional.
The end really left me wondering if the kids could fly out and become these promising people their parents set them out to be, but something tells me that it won't be that simple.
Before I saw this movie for the first time, I assumed it would be a very dark drama about some pretty messed up shit. Instead, it is a very hilarious drama about some pretty messed up shit. The fact that they couldn't be blatant about their jokes makes them even funnier. I probably didn't catch them all the first time, or even this time maybe. Repeat viewing is worth it here for sure.
Not to mention that all the actors are great in this. I can't even believe that Lolita is played by an actual 14 year old. She makes the role perfect and somehow doesn't look bad next to James Mason or Peter Sellers. By the end of the movie, you really start getting into the seriousness of what is going on, while still having the jokes here and there. And somehow they make you sorta sympathizes with a terribly awful relationship.
My only negative is that they run it a bit too long. It feels like we take a long time to get to the end, but then suddenly jump forward years in one scene. Yet, for some reason we don't get the feeling that time has jumped. Don't get me wrong though, there isn't a scene that I think is bad in here. I think you should make sure you see this one for sure.
Best to watch with friends, but not parents or something. That'd be weird.
Millennium Actress, which is directed by Satoshi Kon (Perfect Blue, Paprika, Paranoia Agent), is without a doubt his defining masterpiece in my opinion. This movie is a complete directorial tour de force and Kon literally blew my mind away with the editing, style and art that he displays in almost every scene. This is ultimately a biographical story about a young girl chasing after her first true love while becoming a popular Japanese movie actress but it morphs into something much more.
Millennium Actress probably had one of the most unique forms of story telling that I've ever seen in a movie. I loved how Chiyoko's story had a dualistic perspective as Kon seamlessly melds together images and scenes from the story of Chiyoko's own real life and from her famous films (which vary wildly from taking place in the Sengoku period to post-WW2 Japan to outer space). These transitions really add to the feeling and intensity of Chiyoko desperately chasing after and searching for her lost love. And you can't help but fall in love with the passion shown by both the main characters, Chiyoko and Genya. Just as Chiyoko says at the end, it was the "chase" that she truly loved and, by god, this film was one hell of a thrilling chase. This is an absolute must-watch for fans of Kon's other works.
I've seen this movie 3 times now and have a ticket purchased for Wednesday night again in the Dome. I LOVE IT. Favorite movie of the year and well on it's way to one of my faves of all time. The music wonderful, the cinematography is gorgeous, the script is hilarious and everything just keeps moving. I love every single scene. I think it has the chance to be the fourth movie ever to win Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Actress and Actor. Man, is this amazing!!!! See immediately then buy the soundtrack!!!!
UPDATE: Saw it for the 6th time yesterday at the Chinese Theater in IMAX. I. Still. Love. This. Movie. !!!!!!
UPDATE: Took my fam to see it the other night for #7. Still great!
UPDATE: Saw this last night at the Hollywood Bowl, making it my 8th time on the big screen. And I gotta say, my friend and I had an epic epic nightmare of a battle making it to the show and we were 20 minutes into movie when we got there but this movie is so special and spectacular it got us out of our funk instantly. Love it! Then I went home and watched it on blu-ray to hear the commentary man oh man I love this movie. Okay done with updates now that it's on home vid.
I don't think I have ever been in love with a movie, like I'm in love with La La Land. From the first few seconds, till the very end. This movie had me and didn't let go. My english vocabulary is not good enough to express my love, heck, my dutch vocabulary is not good enough to express it. This movie is everything.
It is beautiful, happy, magical, romantic and I could go on for a little while longer but I won't. I wasn't expecting it to be this musical-y, but I mean, I love musicals so I'm not complaining. I think this is a great "musical" because there isn't non stop singing, so people who don't like musicals might like this one because it's more "subtle". I can only imagine how much practice went into all those dance routines and don't get me started on the impressive piano skills Ryan Gosling showed us.
Something that really impressed me as well was the way they filmed everything. It's a very creative and different way, which I really enjoyed and think makes this movie a great inspiration for those who love film and camerawork themselves. The build up and flashbacks and stuff were really cool as well. Yea I really enjoyed that. Also, the storyline, which does so much for a movie, was so great.
This is normally the part were I talk about the actors, but seeing that there were mainly only two actors and they were both amazing (I do think tho, that Ryan Gosling his character wasn't a very challenging one for him because we have seen him in roles like these before. Mixing it up with all the dancing, singing en piano playing though, you got something quite different and I loved it), I'm going to skip this part and say that you should watch this movie, do nothing more, just watch it, enjoyed it and love it.
A fly-on-the-wall documentary following disgraced US Congressman Anthony Weiner’s campaign to become mayor of New York.
In case you are not familiar with the story, Anthony Weiner was involved in a sexting scandal that started with him posting a dick pic to his public Twitter account by mistake. The documentary kicks off a couple of years later, as his mayoral campaign takes off in spite of his reputation.
Then, as if the film making gods were smiling down upon us, another scandal breaks out as they are shooting the film. You get to see a career unravel in real time from the perspective of the person at the centre of the shit sandwich.
The whole thing is made more spectacular by the fact that Weiner is married to Huma Abedin - Hillary Clinton’s senior aide. Arguably the most interesting parts of the film are watching her standing in the sidelines, incredulous.
In terms of raw footage, this has to be one of the greatest documentaries ever made. It’s pure gold. The story seems to just tell itself, and so much crazy shit happens that I just sat there, mouth agape, not quite able to believe what I was seeing. One of the best films of the year.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/08/19/weiner/
