Bad dialogue, unlikeable characters, boring plot, superficial visuals, not very compelling thematically. There is a not very much else to say about it, I almost feel asleep while watching the first two episodes. Nothing happened! The worst part is Galadriel who is portrayed like a religious zealot, complete with crazy eyes. The not-Hobbits are gross and dirty, and feel like an amateur theatre production. The elves don't look right. The one okay thing about this is the dwarves look fine and some CGI vistas look decent. A pity the story is terrible. Tolkien would not approve of his story being bastardized in this way, he's rolling in his grave.
Reviews
38 Reviews
Dangerous Lies
(2020)
generic TV thriller
1 May 2020
Slow, moody and repressed, Dangerous Lies is the newest feature film offering from Netflix, a streaming service with a very weak track record when it comes to original content, not withstanding a couple successful television shows and documentaries.
Directed by Michael Scott and penned by David Golden, both of whose resumes mostly include Hallmark and Lifetime television movies, the film looks and plays like a fairly generic example of those aforementioned television productions.
The plot starts out fairly simply, before devolving into a convoluted mess. Katie (Camilla Mendes of Riverdale fame), and her husband Adam (Jessie T. Usher) move into a large "Chicago" (though actually and clearly Vancouver) mansion when its owner Leonard (bizarrely, Elliot Gould) dies under suspicious circumstances and leaves everything to Katie. The police keep asking questions, and the young couple seem to have a dubious sense of morals.
Development leads to development and red herrings trip over red herrings before we realize the full truth a full 4 minutes before the movie ends. The fact that there are still unresolved plot holes when the credits roll don't seem to worry the filmmakers much.
The movie plays like a rather by the numbers mystery thriller. There is not much to say about the performances because there is not much performing going on. The wooding acting is at least tolerable in Camilla Mendes' case, a young lady who is very easy on the eyes, even though she is wearing approximately fifteen pounds of make up in every scene.
The dialogue is about what you would expect from something like this, exposition delivered in the most blunt and apparent way. The subtext, as Giles from Buffy would say, is mostly just...text.
In terms of the visuals, the film is competently shot, though the cinematographic choices are conservative and unoriginal. The colour grading is very obvious throughout the movie, perhaps an attempt to make the end product look closer to Riverdale, the audience of which are no doubt the same target as this film. There is a slight orange tint to the exterior shots which I suppose is supposed to suggest Chicago, though it obviously was filmed in Vancouver, as most Netflix productions are at this point.
Despite all this, I did find the movie vaguely compelling in a "what is the solution to this mystery" way, though the movie does a bad job of providing any clues to help an attentive audience follow the plot, preferring to instead reveal things with no set up or payoff. To each their own, I suppose.
Dangerous Lies clunks along like the bad but watchable Lifetime-esque movie it is. It does nothing that hasn't been done before several dozen times, some better and some worse, and leaves the viewer with a slightly unsatisfied feeling as of "oh, I guess that was it?". The lies that Dangerous Lies tell are mostly to the audience, but end up being ruefully not dangerous.
Directed by Michael Scott and penned by David Golden, both of whose resumes mostly include Hallmark and Lifetime television movies, the film looks and plays like a fairly generic example of those aforementioned television productions.
The plot starts out fairly simply, before devolving into a convoluted mess. Katie (Camilla Mendes of Riverdale fame), and her husband Adam (Jessie T. Usher) move into a large "Chicago" (though actually and clearly Vancouver) mansion when its owner Leonard (bizarrely, Elliot Gould) dies under suspicious circumstances and leaves everything to Katie. The police keep asking questions, and the young couple seem to have a dubious sense of morals.
Development leads to development and red herrings trip over red herrings before we realize the full truth a full 4 minutes before the movie ends. The fact that there are still unresolved plot holes when the credits roll don't seem to worry the filmmakers much.
The movie plays like a rather by the numbers mystery thriller. There is not much to say about the performances because there is not much performing going on. The wooding acting is at least tolerable in Camilla Mendes' case, a young lady who is very easy on the eyes, even though she is wearing approximately fifteen pounds of make up in every scene.
The dialogue is about what you would expect from something like this, exposition delivered in the most blunt and apparent way. The subtext, as Giles from Buffy would say, is mostly just...text.
In terms of the visuals, the film is competently shot, though the cinematographic choices are conservative and unoriginal. The colour grading is very obvious throughout the movie, perhaps an attempt to make the end product look closer to Riverdale, the audience of which are no doubt the same target as this film. There is a slight orange tint to the exterior shots which I suppose is supposed to suggest Chicago, though it obviously was filmed in Vancouver, as most Netflix productions are at this point.
Despite all this, I did find the movie vaguely compelling in a "what is the solution to this mystery" way, though the movie does a bad job of providing any clues to help an attentive audience follow the plot, preferring to instead reveal things with no set up or payoff. To each their own, I suppose.
Dangerous Lies clunks along like the bad but watchable Lifetime-esque movie it is. It does nothing that hasn't been done before several dozen times, some better and some worse, and leaves the viewer with a slightly unsatisfied feeling as of "oh, I guess that was it?". The lies that Dangerous Lies tell are mostly to the audience, but end up being ruefully not dangerous.
Tempus
(2015)
lovely short
27 December 2015
Sometimes the simplest stories are the most compelling.
A man rushes to the bedside of his dying wife.
No sound except the lovely score by José Villalobos, which effectively helps convey emotion.
Told completely in slow-motion- an interesting creative choice.
It's visually impressive, jam packed with symbolism, and shows what can be done with not the largest budget, I'm guessing.
Clocking it at 3 minutes, it doesn't overstay it's welcome, but ends just at the right time and on the right note.
It moved me. I liked it. Check it out.
A man rushes to the bedside of his dying wife.
No sound except the lovely score by José Villalobos, which effectively helps convey emotion.
Told completely in slow-motion- an interesting creative choice.
It's visually impressive, jam packed with symbolism, and shows what can be done with not the largest budget, I'm guessing.
Clocking it at 3 minutes, it doesn't overstay it's welcome, but ends just at the right time and on the right note.
It moved me. I liked it. Check it out.
The Revenant
(I) (2015)
visceral experience from beginning to end
21 December 2015
The Revenant is definitely one of the best shot films of the year. Some of the camera moves are just extraordinary. The story is simple, but that's fine because it's the overall experience that's unique, not the premise. It's basically a revenge western meets a survival story. Set in frosty Montana, Hugh Glass must overcome all odds to avenge the death of his son. All the acting is great- but it's the mood that really stands out. From icy mountains, to great plains, the oppressive and gloomy atmosphere will not be for everyone. It's a hard film to sit through. There are scenes of great violence and very very slow-paced scenes. Plus the runtime is over two and half hours. So it might not be for everyone- but it's still an excellent film.
amazing return to the star wars universe
15 December 2015
We've waited.... and waited..... and here it is! The Force Awakens is everything we've come to love about Star Wars. It's big, it's epic, it's spectacular. And underneath, there's actually a big heart to it all. You get a sense from watching it, that it was made by true fans of the series. I won't give away any real spoilers- but rest assured Jar Jar Binks does not put in an appearance, so remain calm.
The good guys are very likable, I thought the relationship between Ray and Finn worked out very well. It gave the film it's emotional anchor.
The villains are pretty much what you would expect, but the filmmakers threw in a few twists about them that were interesting.
Add some terrific battle sequences, and you get a very welcome return to the greatness of Star Wars. Go and see it (but you already know you will). Take a friend or a family member. You'll have a great time. Because that's what these films are about when it comes down to it.
Overall, Force Awakens shows off some snazzy visual effects combined with a compelling story and great characters. It won't disappoint.
The good guys are very likable, I thought the relationship between Ray and Finn worked out very well. It gave the film it's emotional anchor.
The villains are pretty much what you would expect, but the filmmakers threw in a few twists about them that were interesting.
Add some terrific battle sequences, and you get a very welcome return to the greatness of Star Wars. Go and see it (but you already know you will). Take a friend or a family member. You'll have a great time. Because that's what these films are about when it comes down to it.
Overall, Force Awakens shows off some snazzy visual effects combined with a compelling story and great characters. It won't disappoint.
Knock Knock
(I) (2015)
bizarre
30 October 2015
Eli Roth specializes in weird and twisted films, and this one is no exception. It is hard to understand what Roth was trying to accomplish with it, though. Is it a commentary on ultra-feminism, or a morality tale about how men can never say no to you-know-what?
It reminds me of the film Hard Candy, which I didn't much care for either, but at least that one made more sense in terms of the characters. In that film the man was a paedophile, and the girl was kind-of nuts, but slightly more justified in her actions.
In this story, the guy (Keanu Reeves), is a perfectly good man, happily married, and a loving father. Yet the crazy bitches (I'm allowed to say that, it was in the movie) who invade his home, and seduce him, are the real predators.
There's moments of black humour throughout it that really worked. The last line made me laugh out loud.
I think that a lot of people will hate this movie. Indeed it is very frustrating to watch, as Keanu gets tortured by these psychos. But I believe that is what Eli Roth was going for, so I have to give him props for that.
As I said earlier, the film gives a lot of mixed messages. There's lines of dialogue that seem to relate to the concept that all men are sexual deviants, but I do not believe that this is the actual point of the movie. (Roth's wife is nearly 20 years his junior, after all, so he's in no position to talk about paedophilia).
I'm more inclined to think that this is a reaction to many of the so-called feminists and man haters out there.
Or maybe it's just meant to be trashy entertainment.
Who knows.
It reminds me of the film Hard Candy, which I didn't much care for either, but at least that one made more sense in terms of the characters. In that film the man was a paedophile, and the girl was kind-of nuts, but slightly more justified in her actions.
In this story, the guy (Keanu Reeves), is a perfectly good man, happily married, and a loving father. Yet the crazy bitches (I'm allowed to say that, it was in the movie) who invade his home, and seduce him, are the real predators.
There's moments of black humour throughout it that really worked. The last line made me laugh out loud.
I think that a lot of people will hate this movie. Indeed it is very frustrating to watch, as Keanu gets tortured by these psychos. But I believe that is what Eli Roth was going for, so I have to give him props for that.
As I said earlier, the film gives a lot of mixed messages. There's lines of dialogue that seem to relate to the concept that all men are sexual deviants, but I do not believe that this is the actual point of the movie. (Roth's wife is nearly 20 years his junior, after all, so he's in no position to talk about paedophilia).
I'm more inclined to think that this is a reaction to many of the so-called feminists and man haters out there.
Or maybe it's just meant to be trashy entertainment.
Who knows.
Goosebumps
(2015)
good for kids
18 October 2015
R.L Stine's books have been extremely popular in the last twenty years, selling hundreds of millions of copies. It's definitely gained a place in the pop culture psyche. The books served as a sort of kids equivalent to Stephen King, doling out scares that were scary enough, yet not deeply disturbing. Surprisingly, this is the first time a theatrical film has been made from the books, though there have been numerous TV shows based on them over time. This Goosebumps movie is not an adaption of any particular R.L Stine story, though most of the monsters in it will be recognized by fans of the books.
The plot follows a similar structure to any typical goosebumps. Zach (Dylan Minnette), a typical teenage boy, moves into a new neighbourhood where nothing seems to happen. He soon meets a couple new friends, geeky Champ (Ryan Lee), and the mysterious Hannah (Odeya Rush). Hannah's father is the enigmatic R.L Stine himself (a comically over the top performance by Jack Black). Mr. Stine is a misanthrope, who hides away in his house with original manuscripts of his books. When Zach accidentally opens one, the fearsome creatures from Goosebumps literally jump off the page and terrorize the town.
It's standard fare, not particularly original, but it works well enough. The monsters swarming reminded me of the finale of Cabin In The Woods, though Cabin pulled it off much more effectively.
Though most kids will enjoy the adventure elements, and laugh at all the right places, anyone older will be disappointed.
Goosebumps is not a horror-comedy. There's elements of horror, and an overabundance of comedy, but they never seamlessly meld.
I wanted more black comedy and less predictable quips.
The humour is very very predictable. The music will stop and then: (insert joke), then the payoff. This is all very well if it happens once or twice, but this type of lowbrow comedy gets old very fast.
That's not say the Goosebumps movie is entirely without merit. There's many clever aspects, I chuckled quite a few times. Some of the visuals look cool (some don't).
The musical score by Danny Elfman (who else) is pretty generic, but helps keep things moving.
What else? The villain is a bit wooden. (ha ha) And there's a clever cameo by R.L Stine.
Kids will love this movie.
The plot follows a similar structure to any typical goosebumps. Zach (Dylan Minnette), a typical teenage boy, moves into a new neighbourhood where nothing seems to happen. He soon meets a couple new friends, geeky Champ (Ryan Lee), and the mysterious Hannah (Odeya Rush). Hannah's father is the enigmatic R.L Stine himself (a comically over the top performance by Jack Black). Mr. Stine is a misanthrope, who hides away in his house with original manuscripts of his books. When Zach accidentally opens one, the fearsome creatures from Goosebumps literally jump off the page and terrorize the town.
It's standard fare, not particularly original, but it works well enough. The monsters swarming reminded me of the finale of Cabin In The Woods, though Cabin pulled it off much more effectively.
Though most kids will enjoy the adventure elements, and laugh at all the right places, anyone older will be disappointed.
Goosebumps is not a horror-comedy. There's elements of horror, and an overabundance of comedy, but they never seamlessly meld.
I wanted more black comedy and less predictable quips.
The humour is very very predictable. The music will stop and then: (insert joke), then the payoff. This is all very well if it happens once or twice, but this type of lowbrow comedy gets old very fast.
That's not say the Goosebumps movie is entirely without merit. There's many clever aspects, I chuckled quite a few times. Some of the visuals look cool (some don't).
The musical score by Danny Elfman (who else) is pretty generic, but helps keep things moving.
What else? The villain is a bit wooden. (ha ha) And there's a clever cameo by R.L Stine.
Kids will love this movie.
Brooklyn
(2015)
simple, touching story
26 September 2015
Enjoy this movie for what it is. A simple girl meets boy story, with impeccable acting and luxurious cinematography.
True, it's not the highest budget film ever, and so we never really see 1950's Brooklyn. Most the shots of it are in shallow focus, or at night. Personally, I would have liked the movie to have been more grand in scope, especially since it's lovely orchestral score suggested something more akin to an epic historical, but all the shots are fairly closeup.
Maybe that was the point. It's a very personal story.
Saoirse Ronan, once again turns in a great performance. She is completely believable, and hits all the right notes.
The chemistry between her and her love interests doesn't sizzle as well as it could have with better casting on their end, but it doesn't detract from the overall film.
Some scenes seem a little melodramatic and overdone: (like when she steps through the gleaming doorway into America for the first time, and also there are some unnecessary slow motion scenes).
But, in the end, Brooklyn is a charming tale.
True, it's not the highest budget film ever, and so we never really see 1950's Brooklyn. Most the shots of it are in shallow focus, or at night. Personally, I would have liked the movie to have been more grand in scope, especially since it's lovely orchestral score suggested something more akin to an epic historical, but all the shots are fairly closeup.
Maybe that was the point. It's a very personal story.
Saoirse Ronan, once again turns in a great performance. She is completely believable, and hits all the right notes.
The chemistry between her and her love interests doesn't sizzle as well as it could have with better casting on their end, but it doesn't detract from the overall film.
Some scenes seem a little melodramatic and overdone: (like when she steps through the gleaming doorway into America for the first time, and also there are some unnecessary slow motion scenes).
But, in the end, Brooklyn is a charming tale.
A Teacher's Obsession
(2015 TV Movie)
Whiplash for girls............. kind of???
16 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A teacher becomes obsessed with a student, and starts helping her out. But just how far will this teacher go to get her way?
Duh. Duh. Duh!!!!
Creeped out? Me neither.
Too be fair, there are several competent performances. Boti Bliss is convincing and surprisingly sympathetic as the crazy teacher. Mia Rose Frampton is OK as the lead, but won't win any Oscars.
But there are just way too many problems with the film. The location, supposedly a high- end girls school, is barely seen. Most of the action takes play in random rooms with no connection to one another. We don't know if we're in a dorm, or an apartment, or a luxury condo, and frankly, we don't care.
There are themes of insanity that just don't ring true. The movie thinks it's disturbing, but it doesn't go the full mile with it. We don't get the feeling that this teacher is truly a threat. She's just this sad sick woman. I felt sorry for her more than the main character.
The movie thinks it's smarter than it is, playing with these concepts that it just can't properly explore with its TV movie limitations.
I liked, however, the scene with the mom and the daughter, where we discover how far corruption has played in their lives. That worked. They should have expanded on it more.
The ending made it fall apart. And we have a completely pointless "1 year later" for a scene that didn't need that time jump to work.
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone really. It's less than mediocre.
Duh. Duh. Duh!!!!
Creeped out? Me neither.
Too be fair, there are several competent performances. Boti Bliss is convincing and surprisingly sympathetic as the crazy teacher. Mia Rose Frampton is OK as the lead, but won't win any Oscars.
But there are just way too many problems with the film. The location, supposedly a high- end girls school, is barely seen. Most of the action takes play in random rooms with no connection to one another. We don't know if we're in a dorm, or an apartment, or a luxury condo, and frankly, we don't care.
There are themes of insanity that just don't ring true. The movie thinks it's disturbing, but it doesn't go the full mile with it. We don't get the feeling that this teacher is truly a threat. She's just this sad sick woman. I felt sorry for her more than the main character.
The movie thinks it's smarter than it is, playing with these concepts that it just can't properly explore with its TV movie limitations.
I liked, however, the scene with the mom and the daughter, where we discover how far corruption has played in their lives. That worked. They should have expanded on it more.
The ending made it fall apart. And we have a completely pointless "1 year later" for a scene that didn't need that time jump to work.
I wouldn't recommend this to anyone really. It's less than mediocre.
A Prairie Home Companion
(2006)
great
24 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This is a charming wonderful film about the last night of a radio show before it goes off the air forever. There is a sort of sweet sadness and memory of older times that hangs over the performers, as they reminisce about their lives. The camera weaves back and forth, letting the actors do their thing, without any chopping editing. The radio show is country/folk music themed, so there is plenty of good music to be had. Much of the inner workings of the show are revealed.
We get to know the characters almost too well, with all their individual quirks and personalities. There's Guy Noir, who seems like he's from a Film Noir. And the Johnson sisters with all their emotional baggage. There's Dusty and Lefty, two cowboys; hillbillies and proud of it. You get the picture. All their interactions are golden.
Yet, underneath the lively music and warmhearted people, there is an undercurrent of death. Because that's what the movie's about, when it comes right down to it. It's about things coming to a close. There are so many references to death in the movie. It shows how large a role death plays in these people's lives. This is personified in an angel who wanders around the proceedings. Even the young people are affected: Lindsay Lohan's character writes poems about suicide.
So how can a film with such strong and serious themes be also so joyous and uplifting?
That's the magic of it. It was Robert Altman's last film; he died shortly after the making of it, and he probably knew that he would. I think this is his parting gift to us. We should cherish this gem.
We get to know the characters almost too well, with all their individual quirks and personalities. There's Guy Noir, who seems like he's from a Film Noir. And the Johnson sisters with all their emotional baggage. There's Dusty and Lefty, two cowboys; hillbillies and proud of it. You get the picture. All their interactions are golden.
Yet, underneath the lively music and warmhearted people, there is an undercurrent of death. Because that's what the movie's about, when it comes right down to it. It's about things coming to a close. There are so many references to death in the movie. It shows how large a role death plays in these people's lives. This is personified in an angel who wanders around the proceedings. Even the young people are affected: Lindsay Lohan's character writes poems about suicide.
So how can a film with such strong and serious themes be also so joyous and uplifting?
That's the magic of it. It was Robert Altman's last film; he died shortly after the making of it, and he probably knew that he would. I think this is his parting gift to us. We should cherish this gem.
The Man from U.N.C.L.E.
(2015)
better than average spy movie
23 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
2015 has been a very good year for spy movies. Early on Kingsman arrived, which surprised a lot of people. Melissa McCarthy made her comeback from the awful Tammy with Spy, a very funny secret agent comedy. Then the new Mission Impossible came out and it was outstanding. Later this year we have the new Bond movie and it seems promising.
Plus the Man from U.N.C.L.E: I liked it a lot. The action scenes are stylishly done, as to be expected from a Guy Ritchie film. Plenty of fast camera moves and zooms and clever editing. There's also a neat storytelling device: something happens but music plays over it so we can't hear what the actors say, and their actions don't make sense. Then they show it to us later on with the sound, and it all fits into place. That was quite ingenious.
The characters are all good, I like the contrast between the two spies: one is very uptight, the other almost too loose.
As befits a spy movie there is plenty of double crosses, stakeouts and chases. Because it's based off a classic show, it feels pretty retro: the theme is cold war espionage. It's a neat throwback element to it.
I enjoyed the music montages; they were originally done. The mix of humour and seriousness really worked.
All in all, it's another good spy flick to add to the list of good 2015 spy flicks
Plus the Man from U.N.C.L.E: I liked it a lot. The action scenes are stylishly done, as to be expected from a Guy Ritchie film. Plenty of fast camera moves and zooms and clever editing. There's also a neat storytelling device: something happens but music plays over it so we can't hear what the actors say, and their actions don't make sense. Then they show it to us later on with the sound, and it all fits into place. That was quite ingenious.
The characters are all good, I like the contrast between the two spies: one is very uptight, the other almost too loose.
As befits a spy movie there is plenty of double crosses, stakeouts and chases. Because it's based off a classic show, it feels pretty retro: the theme is cold war espionage. It's a neat throwback element to it.
I enjoyed the music montages; they were originally done. The mix of humour and seriousness really worked.
All in all, it's another good spy flick to add to the list of good 2015 spy flicks
Fantastic Four
(2015)
not as bad as people are saying....but still bad
20 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing all the negative hype about this movie, I was expecting it to be a lot worse than it was. There were actually enjoyable elements in it. I liked how the tone was darker than the average comic book movie. The beginning starts out promising.
Then the minutes start to go by and little to nothing happens. The characters were flat and boring, and so was the acting. I'd be OK with that as long as the film had something else going for it, but it didn't. It was just focusing on these characters who had no chemistry together, who didn't seem like friends, just like actors pretending to be friends. None of the relationships had any depth. Reed and Ben are supposed to be great friends, yet Ben seems indifferent to Reed. There's a quasi-romantic subplot that's given barely any airtime. Maybe that's for the best because it was really forced.
Then, a hour in I might add, they get their powers and cut to: "one year later" Why??!! So dumb.
We don't get to see enough of what any of them can do.
The special effects are.... passable at times, but not great. The CGI monkey looked really fake. It was only on screen for like a few seconds. Couldn't they have gotten a real monkey? When Reed stretched his face it looked like something out a Doctor Who episode. The classic series.
You can tell that Miles Teller actually thought he was in a good movie in the first twenty minutes or so. Then later on, he looks like he just wants to get his scenes over so he can go back to his trailer.
The visual effect/action scenes involve a lot of looking at tennis balls on poles, while in front of a greenscreen. There's not much art to it.
The last fight scene feels tacked on and pointless, the stakes don't feel high. And how the Fantastic Four come together in the end is so anti-climatic. There's no "Yes! Let's do this!" moment, just a lot of unhappy looking actors saying their poorly written lines.
And that last scene, where they're all joking around, completely undermines the darker tone they were kind of trying for.
Though the movie has something going for it: The scene where Doom walks through the hallway and makes peoples' heads explode was amazing. That's one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in a movie this year. I'm not kidding. And the music behind it was like a dissonant pounding. I loved it. That element of horror really worked. They should have expanded on that.
But nope, here we have a movie that basically exists to set-up another movie that no one will want to see.
So, to summarize, the characters sucked, the special effects and action scenes were mediocre, barely anything happened, but there was one awesome scene.
Then the minutes start to go by and little to nothing happens. The characters were flat and boring, and so was the acting. I'd be OK with that as long as the film had something else going for it, but it didn't. It was just focusing on these characters who had no chemistry together, who didn't seem like friends, just like actors pretending to be friends. None of the relationships had any depth. Reed and Ben are supposed to be great friends, yet Ben seems indifferent to Reed. There's a quasi-romantic subplot that's given barely any airtime. Maybe that's for the best because it was really forced.
Then, a hour in I might add, they get their powers and cut to: "one year later" Why??!! So dumb.
We don't get to see enough of what any of them can do.
The special effects are.... passable at times, but not great. The CGI monkey looked really fake. It was only on screen for like a few seconds. Couldn't they have gotten a real monkey? When Reed stretched his face it looked like something out a Doctor Who episode. The classic series.
You can tell that Miles Teller actually thought he was in a good movie in the first twenty minutes or so. Then later on, he looks like he just wants to get his scenes over so he can go back to his trailer.
The visual effect/action scenes involve a lot of looking at tennis balls on poles, while in front of a greenscreen. There's not much art to it.
The last fight scene feels tacked on and pointless, the stakes don't feel high. And how the Fantastic Four come together in the end is so anti-climatic. There's no "Yes! Let's do this!" moment, just a lot of unhappy looking actors saying their poorly written lines.
And that last scene, where they're all joking around, completely undermines the darker tone they were kind of trying for.
Though the movie has something going for it: The scene where Doom walks through the hallway and makes peoples' heads explode was amazing. That's one of the most memorable scenes I've seen in a movie this year. I'm not kidding. And the music behind it was like a dissonant pounding. I loved it. That element of horror really worked. They should have expanded on that.
But nope, here we have a movie that basically exists to set-up another movie that no one will want to see.
So, to summarize, the characters sucked, the special effects and action scenes were mediocre, barely anything happened, but there was one awesome scene.
Dark Places
(2015)
ah.....no
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Dark Places is the new adaption of a Gillian Flynn book. Charlize Theron plays Libby Day, a 30 something drifter who witnessed her family being murdered when she was 7. She has lived off people's pity for years, but now her money is dried up. She meets Lyle Worth (Nicholas Hoult), an unsolved mysteries geek who is part of a club that believes that Libby's brother Ben (who was convicted of the murders), was falsely accused. And so Libby, for some reason, decides to pursue this line of enquiry.
That's the first of this movie's many problems. There is no strong reason given for why Libby would want to reexamine her past. At the the beginning of the film she is set in her ways, and doesn't seem interested in reopening the case. Yet suddenly she changes her mind? There has to be some important scene in which she decides to discover the truth, but there is none. She simply goes "Okay, fine I'll look into it". This is weak writing.
Another problem is the inordinate amount of flashbacks. Flashbacks should, especially in types of movies like this, be used sparingly and only for pivotal scenes. Yet half this film is comprised of flashbacks to the time of the murders! And they're boring flashbacks, full of clichés and corny acting. There's the drunk, no good father, the bad rich girl (Chloe Moretz, who else), etc. To be fair, there are a couple of good performances in the flashback sequences. Christina Hendricks is lovely and the guy who plays Ben is solid.
The plot, in general, lacks strong direction. It doesn't feel like it's going anywhere fast and for a movie that says it's a thriller this is a big no-no. David Fincher took another Gillian Flynn novel and, with his outstanding direction, elevated the material so that the end product was one of 2014's best films. This cannot be said for Dark Places, which seems content in it's mediocrity.
What's even sadder is it could have easily been saved. My solution is: to spend more time with Lyle Worth, whom I thought was very likable, and his unsolved murders club. Have the reluctant Libby team up with the club and try to solve the case together. That would have allowed for so much more interesting interactions between people; tensions, rivalry, even some comedic banter, which is lacking from this humourless script. There was only one scene in the murder club, but I wanted to spend more time there, and less time in the fricking flashbacks!
The solution to the case seems implausible, but I don't really have a problem with that, just the way it was revealed. It should have had a lot more tension in it and come as a great oh! moment. Instead it just feels like a foregone conclusion.
As it is, Dark Places, while not terrible, is weakened by all the factors above-mentioned, plus bland and depressing direction by Gilles Paquet-Brenner. Give me David Fincher any day.
That's the first of this movie's many problems. There is no strong reason given for why Libby would want to reexamine her past. At the the beginning of the film she is set in her ways, and doesn't seem interested in reopening the case. Yet suddenly she changes her mind? There has to be some important scene in which she decides to discover the truth, but there is none. She simply goes "Okay, fine I'll look into it". This is weak writing.
Another problem is the inordinate amount of flashbacks. Flashbacks should, especially in types of movies like this, be used sparingly and only for pivotal scenes. Yet half this film is comprised of flashbacks to the time of the murders! And they're boring flashbacks, full of clichés and corny acting. There's the drunk, no good father, the bad rich girl (Chloe Moretz, who else), etc. To be fair, there are a couple of good performances in the flashback sequences. Christina Hendricks is lovely and the guy who plays Ben is solid.
The plot, in general, lacks strong direction. It doesn't feel like it's going anywhere fast and for a movie that says it's a thriller this is a big no-no. David Fincher took another Gillian Flynn novel and, with his outstanding direction, elevated the material so that the end product was one of 2014's best films. This cannot be said for Dark Places, which seems content in it's mediocrity.
What's even sadder is it could have easily been saved. My solution is: to spend more time with Lyle Worth, whom I thought was very likable, and his unsolved murders club. Have the reluctant Libby team up with the club and try to solve the case together. That would have allowed for so much more interesting interactions between people; tensions, rivalry, even some comedic banter, which is lacking from this humourless script. There was only one scene in the murder club, but I wanted to spend more time there, and less time in the fricking flashbacks!
The solution to the case seems implausible, but I don't really have a problem with that, just the way it was revealed. It should have had a lot more tension in it and come as a great oh! moment. Instead it just feels like a foregone conclusion.
As it is, Dark Places, while not terrible, is weakened by all the factors above-mentioned, plus bland and depressing direction by Gilles Paquet-Brenner. Give me David Fincher any day.
Haunter
(2013)
intelligent horror
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Lisa is stuck living the same day over and over. Every day she does the same things, and her parents and brother say the same things, and they eat the same things. Every evening they watch the same episode of "Murder, She Wrote" When Lisa becomes aware that her life is repeating itself, things start to change. There are strange noises coming from the basement, her family, especially her father, alter their behaviour slightly, and a mysterious pale man visits their house and makes unsettling threats.
Haunter is a highly effective Horror, Thriller, and Mystery. There is a perfect combination of all three genres in this overlooked gem.
It's intelligent and makes the best of it's premise. I love how whenever Lisa discovers something new about her situation, more layers are added to the story. We, the audience, never truly realize what's going on until close to the end, and that uncertainty throughout keeps our interest high.
It's a perfect example of what horror should be- creepy, mysterious, atmospheric, and, above all, engrossing.
With elements similar to "Groundhog Day", "The Shining", and "The Sixth Sense", Haunter still manages to feel fresh. It's a real pity this film isn't more popular. It deserves to be seen by every fan of the genre.
Haunter is a highly effective Horror, Thriller, and Mystery. There is a perfect combination of all three genres in this overlooked gem.
It's intelligent and makes the best of it's premise. I love how whenever Lisa discovers something new about her situation, more layers are added to the story. We, the audience, never truly realize what's going on until close to the end, and that uncertainty throughout keeps our interest high.
It's a perfect example of what horror should be- creepy, mysterious, atmospheric, and, above all, engrossing.
With elements similar to "Groundhog Day", "The Shining", and "The Sixth Sense", Haunter still manages to feel fresh. It's a real pity this film isn't more popular. It deserves to be seen by every fan of the genre.
World's Greatest Dad
(I) (2009)
brilliant
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Mr. Clayton is an unpopular teacher who lives his even more unpopular jerk of a son, Kyle. When Kyle accidentally kills himself while masturbating (no I'm not making this up), Clayton makes it look like suicide to spare his son's dignity (at least somewhat).
Eventually, when Kyle's "suicide note" (actually written by Clayton) is published in the school paper, people begin to see Kyle as a hero, and Clayton, by association, becomes much more popular.
The film shows how death can erase all flaws from from individuals. At every funeral there's always people saying wonderful things about the deceased. "He was such a kind man." or "She was a bright spot in our life." But were they really?
This movie takes it even further as the whole school becomes convinced that Kyle was a misunderstood genius.
Bobcat Goldthwait is some sort of genius himself when it comes to satire, and though this is not as vicious and controversial as his later film "God Bless America", there are still many great comedic moments. One of my favourite parts is: The Principle: "Hardy anyone came to the funeral. I felt bad, I should have gone." Counsellor: "Don't blame yourself. It was a weekday."
But the film also has it's fair share of drama as well- the scene where Clayton finds his son dead is heartbreaking.
Robin Williams was a great comedian, but people sometimes forget that he was also an amazing dramatic actor as well. The way he underplays certain scenes allows for a great build up of his character, making the cathartic release that much more satisfying.
World's Greatest Dad is a very good movie that you should definitely check out.
Eventually, when Kyle's "suicide note" (actually written by Clayton) is published in the school paper, people begin to see Kyle as a hero, and Clayton, by association, becomes much more popular.
The film shows how death can erase all flaws from from individuals. At every funeral there's always people saying wonderful things about the deceased. "He was such a kind man." or "She was a bright spot in our life." But were they really?
This movie takes it even further as the whole school becomes convinced that Kyle was a misunderstood genius.
Bobcat Goldthwait is some sort of genius himself when it comes to satire, and though this is not as vicious and controversial as his later film "God Bless America", there are still many great comedic moments. One of my favourite parts is: The Principle: "Hardy anyone came to the funeral. I felt bad, I should have gone." Counsellor: "Don't blame yourself. It was a weekday."
But the film also has it's fair share of drama as well- the scene where Clayton finds his son dead is heartbreaking.
Robin Williams was a great comedian, but people sometimes forget that he was also an amazing dramatic actor as well. The way he underplays certain scenes allows for a great build up of his character, making the cathartic release that much more satisfying.
World's Greatest Dad is a very good movie that you should definitely check out.
Machine Gun Preacher
(2011)
bizarre
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
The title and poster make it look like an exploitation flick, and the film honestly feels like one at times. I'm just not sure what it intended to exploit. Sam Childers (Gerald Butler) is an ex- convict who turns around his life, develops an obsession over Jesus and, for some reason, orphaned African kids. So he becomes a missionary and preacher in Africa, basically abandoning his wife and daughter at home. He builds a school where orphans can live, but there are bad people who don't like what he's doing. He must defend the orphans. Hence the machine gun. I find this film a bit sleazy. It's not awful, just kind of unpleasant. I feel sorry for Childers family that he leaves behind. The orphans aren't given much personality so that it's impossible to deeply care about them. It's sad when we see them die, but not because we are emotionally invested in them. Shoot a dog on screen and it will make people unhappy. It's manipulative. That having been said, there are some powerful scenes. Gerald Butler is compelling in his way.
Strangely enough, this movie reminds me of "American Sniper", which I didn't care for much either. Both films are glaringly from the American perspective, and both have two distinct settings that they switch back and forth during their runtime: "at home" and "in the foreign land", thus the pacing in both films is very uneven. Neither film provides any good reason for their leading mans' motivations. And Gerald Butler and Bradley Cooper are practically the same character. Most importantly, both the films are about a mans obsession with a faraway crisis, and descent into madness. They are also both based on true stories.
To be sure, Machine Gun Preacher is an oddity, as I can't imagine what demographic it intends on catering to. It seems to be a PG-13 film pushed to an R rating (usually it's the other way around). People looking for an action filled film won't find it here, but neither will they discover an intelligent drama. Part of me wants to recommend this film, just because of how weird it is.
Strangely enough, this movie reminds me of "American Sniper", which I didn't care for much either. Both films are glaringly from the American perspective, and both have two distinct settings that they switch back and forth during their runtime: "at home" and "in the foreign land", thus the pacing in both films is very uneven. Neither film provides any good reason for their leading mans' motivations. And Gerald Butler and Bradley Cooper are practically the same character. Most importantly, both the films are about a mans obsession with a faraway crisis, and descent into madness. They are also both based on true stories.
To be sure, Machine Gun Preacher is an oddity, as I can't imagine what demographic it intends on catering to. It seems to be a PG-13 film pushed to an R rating (usually it's the other way around). People looking for an action filled film won't find it here, but neither will they discover an intelligent drama. Part of me wants to recommend this film, just because of how weird it is.
Final Girl
(2015)
don't bother
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Abigail Breslin plays an assassin who infiltrates a gang of boys who spend their pastime murdering girls. The result is an unpleasant experience that, despite being only 90 minutes, feels too long. In order for the film to have worked it really needed to sell the idea that baby-faced Breslin could actually be a hit girl. And it didn't. She has no strong motivation for doing what she did, and simply doesn't seem capable of it. The boys come off as eccentric losers. How any girl would willingly go into the woods with them is beyond me, but apparently they've killed dozens. The shot composition is well done throughout, though the cinematography itself feels flat. Like a photograph. The surreal drug-induced scenes are more bizarre than disturbing but I still liked them more than most things in this film. In the end, Final Girl's fatal flaw is that it doesn't seem to have a point. What did the filmmakers intend on saying? It's important for a film, especially one that thinks it's this smart, to have some sort of message, but if there is one, I have not been able to find it.
God Bless America
(2011)
god bless this film
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Frank is disillusioned with a society that has become increasingly brainless, shallow, and rude. So he decides to do what anyone would- take a gun to the people he doesn't like. He meets disturbed teen Roxy, and together they depart on a quest to remove the blights of society.
Sounds weird? Well, the real weird thing is that this may well be the most important movie to come out in years. It perfectly encapsulates many of the issues that America faces- obsession with celebrities, exploitation of the weak, and mindless consumerism, to name a few.
The first half and hour is perfect satire and wickedly funny. When Frank flips through the channels, the content is pretty much real cable. Reality shows like Jersey Shore are parodied, as well as a vicious but spot-on satire of American Idol, "American Superstars". And then there are the plethora of mindless advertisements.
When Frank and Roxy go on their killing spree it becomes more wish-fulfilment than satire (seeing a bunch of obnoxious and loud cinema goers and corrupt TV personalities killed) but that's okay, because it's immensely cathartic and satisfying. Frank's monologues throughout are superb, albeit twisted.
I think the ending could have been smarter, considering how brilliant the rest of the film is, and the scenes where Frank and Roxy are in the hotel room talking about the types of people that deserve to die (people that give high-fives), drag on and don't add much.
Still, Godbless America should be required viewing for every person (who isn't a prude). Like it or not, it has something important to say.
Sounds weird? Well, the real weird thing is that this may well be the most important movie to come out in years. It perfectly encapsulates many of the issues that America faces- obsession with celebrities, exploitation of the weak, and mindless consumerism, to name a few.
The first half and hour is perfect satire and wickedly funny. When Frank flips through the channels, the content is pretty much real cable. Reality shows like Jersey Shore are parodied, as well as a vicious but spot-on satire of American Idol, "American Superstars". And then there are the plethora of mindless advertisements.
When Frank and Roxy go on their killing spree it becomes more wish-fulfilment than satire (seeing a bunch of obnoxious and loud cinema goers and corrupt TV personalities killed) but that's okay, because it's immensely cathartic and satisfying. Frank's monologues throughout are superb, albeit twisted.
I think the ending could have been smarter, considering how brilliant the rest of the film is, and the scenes where Frank and Roxy are in the hotel room talking about the types of people that deserve to die (people that give high-fives), drag on and don't add much.
Still, Godbless America should be required viewing for every person (who isn't a prude). Like it or not, it has something important to say.
Flipped
(I) (2010)
lovely film
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Flipped is one of those gems that slip by, comparatively unnoticed. Slammed by critics upon it's initial release, it was a box office failure, barely making one fourteenth of it's budget. Years later, it has garnered a small but loyal following. The fact is, the movie is very good. One of 2010's best. It's not a standard teen flick, it occurs on the threshold of adolescence. Bryce and Juli are longtime neighbours. Juli has been obsessed with Bryce for years, but Bryce has never been interested in her. The movie's title is clever. As Bryce begins to become more keen on Juli, so she begins to lose interest in him. So they flip in their opinions of one another, basically. Being told from two perspectives- Bryce's and Juli's, adds to the "flipped" aspect. It's highly entertaining to see how their interpretations of the same events are different. Callan McAuliffe, who plays Bryce actually looks like a kid from the 50's (which is the movie's setting). Madeline Carroll's as cute as a button, and also gives a great performance. Unusual for a kids movie, the adult characters are also quite nicely fleshed out. It's Rob Reiner's best movie since "A Few Good Men". The themes of friendship,family, loss, and love make this moving picture...well, moving. I can only hope that more people discover this movie. Spread the word!
Cowgirls 'n Angels
(2012)
enjoyable fluff
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
On my DVD copy of "Cowgirls an' Angels" there's a sticker that reads: "family approved by Dove". That's all you really need to know.
Ida is a young girl who desperately wants to find her daddy. She is taken in by the Sweethearts, a group of travelling rodeo cowgirls who perform stunts while on horseback. Ida travels and performs with them and learns valuable lessons about life along the way. Aww.
The most important aspect on such a premise working or not is a likable main character. In this respect, Bailee Madison was perfectly cast, it's like the role was written for her (it probably was). She gives a layered and interesting performance, and is a joy to watch.
I enjoyed the film because of Madison, but also because I liked seeing some of the inner workings of the southern rodeo circuit. People go to the movies for many reasons, and one of them is to spend time in good company. I felt in good company here, I liked the characters and their respective story lines.
At times the movie feels too "wholesome", but it's heart is always in the right place.
I've never been to the south, but this film makes me want to pack my bags and go. Strange how movies can make you feel nostalgia for places you've never seen, and events you were never there for.
Ida is a young girl who desperately wants to find her daddy. She is taken in by the Sweethearts, a group of travelling rodeo cowgirls who perform stunts while on horseback. Ida travels and performs with them and learns valuable lessons about life along the way. Aww.
The most important aspect on such a premise working or not is a likable main character. In this respect, Bailee Madison was perfectly cast, it's like the role was written for her (it probably was). She gives a layered and interesting performance, and is a joy to watch.
I enjoyed the film because of Madison, but also because I liked seeing some of the inner workings of the southern rodeo circuit. People go to the movies for many reasons, and one of them is to spend time in good company. I felt in good company here, I liked the characters and their respective story lines.
At times the movie feels too "wholesome", but it's heart is always in the right place.
I've never been to the south, but this film makes me want to pack my bags and go. Strange how movies can make you feel nostalgia for places you've never seen, and events you were never there for.
A Taste of Romance
(2011 TV Movie)
a pleasant surprise
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I knew this was a Hallmark film so needless to say my expectations were not very high. But to my surprise, I found myself not only entertained by A Taste of Romance, but actually liking it and being moved by it.
The story is simple: two restaurants clash, but then the uptight owner of one and the down to earth owner of the other start growing fond of each other. There's romance in the air!
It's really quite good how everything plays out, the performances all around are much better than expected for a TV movie, especially a Hallmark one. Teri Polo, Bailee Madison, and James Patrick Stuart work well together, their interactions work.
The film is very obvious, lacks any subtleties, buts that's my only major complaint about it.
It's not a good movie by Hollywood standards, but it's a good TV movie.
The story is simple: two restaurants clash, but then the uptight owner of one and the down to earth owner of the other start growing fond of each other. There's romance in the air!
It's really quite good how everything plays out, the performances all around are much better than expected for a TV movie, especially a Hallmark one. Teri Polo, Bailee Madison, and James Patrick Stuart work well together, their interactions work.
The film is very obvious, lacks any subtleties, buts that's my only major complaint about it.
It's not a good movie by Hollywood standards, but it's a good TV movie.
Northpole
(2014 TV Movie)
what do you expect from Hallmark?
17 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Northpole is about a boy in a town that has lost it's Christmas spirit. This boy hasn't lost his, though, and he attracts the attention of a Northpole elf (Northpole is a city where Santa and his elves live), who befriends him. Together they must find a way to spread Christmas cheer or else Northpole will lose it's power.
Basically they ripped off 2003's Elf. Never mind. Is the movie enjoyable? I would say it is, in general.
The best shot in the film is the first one, where the city of Northpole is shown, and then it zooms up to a cliff where Clementine (the elf) is watching the skies with a telescope. In fact, all the scenes in Northpole city look pretty cool. I like the design of it.
Unfortunately, most of the film takes place in the boy's town, which is very generic. And the town's not the only thing that's generic: the plot, the characters, and the dialogue are all pretty much standard fare.
It's like a Hallmark card; predictable, sentimental, but not overtly tacky.
Basically they ripped off 2003's Elf. Never mind. Is the movie enjoyable? I would say it is, in general.
The best shot in the film is the first one, where the city of Northpole is shown, and then it zooms up to a cliff where Clementine (the elf) is watching the skies with a telescope. In fact, all the scenes in Northpole city look pretty cool. I like the design of it.
Unfortunately, most of the film takes place in the boy's town, which is very generic. And the town's not the only thing that's generic: the plot, the characters, and the dialogue are all pretty much standard fare.
It's like a Hallmark card; predictable, sentimental, but not overtly tacky.
Dolphin Tale 2
(2014)
Dolphin Tale 2 sunk, I mean stunk
17 August 2015
This has to be the most pointless sequel I've ever seen. Ever.
How can you make a sequel to a movie that's based on a true story? The best answer is "you can't". and then everyone can continue on with their lives. But no, here's Dolphin Tale 2, right off the factory rack, processed and ready for distribution. And boy, does it suck.
The first Dolphin Tale was not a great movie, but I liked it because it had a solid story that was mildly inspirational, likable characters with space to progress throughout the film, and stakes that felt fairly high. All things the second movie lacks. For one, there is no story to pursue. In the first film it was "get this dolphin a prosthetic tail or else it will die". It this film it's "get this dolphin a friend soon or else some other aquarium might take it away." And then once they get another dolphin: "make them like each other or else... well, nothing really." There are no real stakes involved, and the threat of having the dolphin taken away lacks the urgency it needed to work. The other major problem is the characters. Sawyer, the main character in both movies (despite the fact the films are "based on a true story", all the human characters are fictional, I wonder how that works), was a shy boy at the beginning of the first movie where he grew to be more confident by joining the community at the aquarium and helping to save the dolphin's life. That was his character arc in the first film and it worked. In Dolphin Tale 2 his character has nowhere to go, besides a weak sub-plot involving him getting a scholarship to go to biology summer camp or something.
None of the other character have any arcs either. Morgan Freeman seems to have reached an all time low in his career. The other films he was in this year were "Lucy" and "Transcendence".
Has Ashley Judd ever gotten tired of being typecast as "the mom" for the last twenty years?
There is the most obvious attempt at comic relief with the annoying pelican, but it's not funny, it's dumb.
With the amount of self-congratulatory shoulder patting going on, plus a cameo by Bethany Hamilton, I was getting strong Christian Film Industry vibes. I half expected Kevin Sorbo to pop up.
The film is testament on what not to do. Don't make a sequel to a "true story" (or any story, for that matter) unless there is somewhere to go with it. This is cinema, not television, and this lazy, sloppy storytelling just won't cut it.
Hopefully Dolphin Tale 2 will sink into the depths of obscurity, where it belongs.
How can you make a sequel to a movie that's based on a true story? The best answer is "you can't". and then everyone can continue on with their lives. But no, here's Dolphin Tale 2, right off the factory rack, processed and ready for distribution. And boy, does it suck.
The first Dolphin Tale was not a great movie, but I liked it because it had a solid story that was mildly inspirational, likable characters with space to progress throughout the film, and stakes that felt fairly high. All things the second movie lacks. For one, there is no story to pursue. In the first film it was "get this dolphin a prosthetic tail or else it will die". It this film it's "get this dolphin a friend soon or else some other aquarium might take it away." And then once they get another dolphin: "make them like each other or else... well, nothing really." There are no real stakes involved, and the threat of having the dolphin taken away lacks the urgency it needed to work. The other major problem is the characters. Sawyer, the main character in both movies (despite the fact the films are "based on a true story", all the human characters are fictional, I wonder how that works), was a shy boy at the beginning of the first movie where he grew to be more confident by joining the community at the aquarium and helping to save the dolphin's life. That was his character arc in the first film and it worked. In Dolphin Tale 2 his character has nowhere to go, besides a weak sub-plot involving him getting a scholarship to go to biology summer camp or something.
None of the other character have any arcs either. Morgan Freeman seems to have reached an all time low in his career. The other films he was in this year were "Lucy" and "Transcendence".
Has Ashley Judd ever gotten tired of being typecast as "the mom" for the last twenty years?
There is the most obvious attempt at comic relief with the annoying pelican, but it's not funny, it's dumb.
With the amount of self-congratulatory shoulder patting going on, plus a cameo by Bethany Hamilton, I was getting strong Christian Film Industry vibes. I half expected Kevin Sorbo to pop up.
The film is testament on what not to do. Don't make a sequel to a "true story" (or any story, for that matter) unless there is somewhere to go with it. This is cinema, not television, and this lazy, sloppy storytelling just won't cut it.
Hopefully Dolphin Tale 2 will sink into the depths of obscurity, where it belongs.
Watercolor Postcards
(2013)
not good by any extension of the word
16 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I figure I might as well review this since barely anyone else has. Here are my thoughts on the film. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything. Basically: it sucked. Not in an entertaining way, it's not overtly bad that you can laugh at it, it just kind of lumbers along and then stops. I know this is an independent, comparatively low-budget film, so I won't criticize the technical deficiencies (of which there are a few). I will simply attempt to make some sense of the film, or why the filmmakers decided to use such a leaden, humourless, and poorly written script.
Sunny is a failed actress who returns to her hometown to attend her mother's funeral and take care of the sister she never knew. There are other things that happen to people for reasons, but it's so poorly set up that there's no drama or tension. What a waste of Jonathan Banks! That guys a badass, but the script made him this meek pushover.
There is some "comic relief" in the film in the form of two fools in a bar who prattle away about nothing, but their cliché banter is simply unfunny.
Conrad Goode plays Butch, a washed up football player who sits around all day writing crappy country songs. Goode also wrote the script, which perhaps explains how his character gets to bang someone half his age.
I can't really talk about the story as there is no real story. This would have been okay, had the acting and the dialogue been good. They weren't.
The worst part of the movie is an extremely half-baked subplot involving Sunny's ex- boyfriend from a long time ago. He gives her a job (hence a beautifully edited janitor montage), but then tries to rape her. She kicks him in the balls and shouts something like: "If I see you again, I'll kill you!". We never see him again. Ah, the wonders of plot arcs!
The one bright spot in this film is young Bailee Madison, who should fire her agent. Who else could be to blame for the string of mediocre to downright bad productions this talented actress has been in recently? Talk about wasted potential.
I didn't mince words here, but I can't recommend a film with such a bad script. It's deplorable that this got past the pre-production stage. It's a prime example of how most independent films are worse, not better, than major motion pictures. At least Hollywood delivers.
Sunny is a failed actress who returns to her hometown to attend her mother's funeral and take care of the sister she never knew. There are other things that happen to people for reasons, but it's so poorly set up that there's no drama or tension. What a waste of Jonathan Banks! That guys a badass, but the script made him this meek pushover.
There is some "comic relief" in the film in the form of two fools in a bar who prattle away about nothing, but their cliché banter is simply unfunny.
Conrad Goode plays Butch, a washed up football player who sits around all day writing crappy country songs. Goode also wrote the script, which perhaps explains how his character gets to bang someone half his age.
I can't really talk about the story as there is no real story. This would have been okay, had the acting and the dialogue been good. They weren't.
The worst part of the movie is an extremely half-baked subplot involving Sunny's ex- boyfriend from a long time ago. He gives her a job (hence a beautifully edited janitor montage), but then tries to rape her. She kicks him in the balls and shouts something like: "If I see you again, I'll kill you!". We never see him again. Ah, the wonders of plot arcs!
The one bright spot in this film is young Bailee Madison, who should fire her agent. Who else could be to blame for the string of mediocre to downright bad productions this talented actress has been in recently? Talk about wasted potential.
I didn't mince words here, but I can't recommend a film with such a bad script. It's deplorable that this got past the pre-production stage. It's a prime example of how most independent films are worse, not better, than major motion pictures. At least Hollywood delivers.
Tomorrowland
(2015)
well done
16 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
I like Tomorrowland very much. I think it's one of the best films of the year. It feels like a throwback to the adventure/sci-fi films of the 80's like Back to the Future. It's optimism and naivete are very endearing qualities in a time where most of the good films are pretty dark. Sure, there's a lot of light entertainment out there nowadays, but light as in lightweight. Tomorrowland manages to be light without being shallow or superficial.
I like how it's unique. It's not based off of anything (besides sharing the name with a Disney ride). It's not a sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, it's not adapted from a book or a video game or a television show. It's completely someone's idea taken to the big screen. For a blockbuster, this is rare. I mean, really rare. I can't even remember a blockbuster that wasn't based off something or connected to existing franchise in recent memory (besides the disaster "Jupiter Ascending") So, I've got to give it points for that.
Another positive thing about the movie are the visuals. Brad Bird is a wonderful visual director, his films just look great and this one is no exception. The realization of Tomorrowland itself is brilliant. I wanted to spend more time there.
I love the characters and the performances, Britt Robertson is really good, George Clooney is great, The robot girl, relative newcomer Raffey Cassidy, is fantastic as well. The road trip aspects really work. There are a lot of great moments there. I thought the message was great, how the folks chosen for Tomorrowland weren't necessarily the smartest or most talented individuals, simply good people who try their best.
The weakest link in the film is the climax and the part leading up to it, where Hugh Laurie descends into a monologue that is a little preachy....well, a lot actually.
Tomorrowland serves as a good tonic to Interstellar, which I also liked a lot. They may have different takes, but they're both fascinating. They are both films about saving humanity and personally, I prefer Tomorrowland's way!
I like how it's unique. It's not based off of anything (besides sharing the name with a Disney ride). It's not a sequel, prequel, remake, reboot, it's not adapted from a book or a video game or a television show. It's completely someone's idea taken to the big screen. For a blockbuster, this is rare. I mean, really rare. I can't even remember a blockbuster that wasn't based off something or connected to existing franchise in recent memory (besides the disaster "Jupiter Ascending") So, I've got to give it points for that.
Another positive thing about the movie are the visuals. Brad Bird is a wonderful visual director, his films just look great and this one is no exception. The realization of Tomorrowland itself is brilliant. I wanted to spend more time there.
I love the characters and the performances, Britt Robertson is really good, George Clooney is great, The robot girl, relative newcomer Raffey Cassidy, is fantastic as well. The road trip aspects really work. There are a lot of great moments there. I thought the message was great, how the folks chosen for Tomorrowland weren't necessarily the smartest or most talented individuals, simply good people who try their best.
The weakest link in the film is the climax and the part leading up to it, where Hugh Laurie descends into a monologue that is a little preachy....well, a lot actually.
Tomorrowland serves as a good tonic to Interstellar, which I also liked a lot. They may have different takes, but they're both fascinating. They are both films about saving humanity and personally, I prefer Tomorrowland's way!
Tell Your Friends