|
|
Post by RedSparrow on Oct 8, 2017 13:30:17 GMT
Finally watched A Ghost Story. What a wonderful little film. It was so amazing. I'm still reeling from it. Once it ended, I couldn't stop crying. My review of A Ghost Story is coming tomorrow. I liked it but I didn't find myself feeling that emotional in the movie, what about it made you cry? {Spoiler!}It's really difficult to explain. I think it was a very personal thing for me.
1. Loss and dealing with it plays such a huge part. I'm personally struggling with that too. So that's one.
2. The acting was heartbreaking.
3. And the ending. His release once he reads M's note. Gave me chills.
I don't know if everybody already has but we need to discuss the note. |
|
|
|
Post by renoh on Oct 8, 2017 19:03:22 GMT
i watched Gerald's Game during this weekend, it's weird and disturbing, but i liked it  Carla Gugino did a great job! Carel Struycken as Moonlight Man was creeping me out, he always is  She was fantastic.She deserves to be a bigger star.  I watched it, very disturbing that I had to look else where in one scene. {Spoiler!}
Don't play with handcuffs |
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Oct 8, 2017 20:14:52 GMT
She was fantastic.She deserves to be a bigger star. I watched it, very disturbing that I had to look else where in one scene. {Spoiler!}
Don't play with handcuffs I had to fast forward through that bit,I think I would`ve been sick if I`d watched it.`Blood is a lubricant`.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 8, 2017 20:35:52 GMT
My review of A Ghost Story
A Ghost Story was one of my most anticipated movies of the year, mostly because of Rooney Mara’s involvement. David Lowery is a good director, giving us Pete’s Dragon and Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, which were very solid movies. He reunited with Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara (who he worked with on Ain’t Them Bodies Saints) to create a secret independent low budget film, which happens to be A Ghost Story. I had honestly no idea what to expect going in. After seeing it finally, I have to say that A Ghost Story is a very odd movie, I can’t really compare it to any other film I’ve ever seen. Talking about this movie is difficult, because its much more of an experience than a movie. I’m not entirely sure what I watched but I can say that I liked it a lot.
As pretentious and cliché as it sounds, A Ghost Story isn’t a movie, its an experience. This movie has a very slow pace, and despite it being under 90 minutes long it can feel very long. Some scenes can go on for a long time (sometimes nothing at all is happening) but for some reason, I was still glued to the screen. There is an infamous scene involving a pie, which will ultimately will be the tester of patience for audiences. There’s also not much dialogue, in fact most of the dialogue of the whole movie takes place closer to the middle of the movie in just one scene in one monologue. That monologue without giving anything away is really something great. This film isn’t structured like a conventional movie, it doesn’t have 3 acts. It’s just following Casey Affleck’s character (who most of the time is in ghost form). As for how I actually felt about A Ghost Story, I don’t actually know what to really say. It’s very hard to describe my thoughts and feelings from it. I definitely felt something indescribable, I wouldn’t say that I was overwhelmed by it like some of the other people who have seen it though. Oddly enough I wasn’t bored once, I was completely invested in the story that David Lower was telling. I honestly can’t say that I completely know what I think of the movie overall. I might need to watch it again at some point, maybe then I’ll really get the full effect of it. What I can say is that it is a unique movie and that I was intrigued from start to finish and watching it truly was an experience.
Even though its not the focus of the movie, we get some great performances here. Rooney Mara is unsurprisingly fantastic here, she really is one of the best actresses working today. She does so well in her small screentime. She’s so convincing as someone who is in grief, the aforementioned pie scene is an example of this, the scene partly worked so well because of Rooney’s acting (on another note, this scene is one of the best representations of grief in a movie). It’s the subtlety that she infuses into her performance, her subtle facial expressions allow you to tell what her character is thinking and feeling without having to say anything. Casey Affleck does good work here, most of the time he’s under a sheet (it really is Casey under the sheet for at least the majority of the ghost’s screentime) and not saying anything but he does very well.
This film is shot in 1:33:1, so the film seemed to be in a somewhat squared frame. It somehow worked for the movie, giving it an old timely look. There are so many long unbroken takes, sometimes nothing is happening at all but for some reason I never got bored or got annoyed. There’s something so real and lonely about some of the long takes makes it so effective. The decision to have the ghost as just a figure under a bed sheet sounds incredibly silly and goofy but there’s some melancholic about it that makes it work surprisingly well. It doesn’t feel silly at all. The production design, for a low budget film ($100,000 to be precise) was actually quite good. It mostly just takes place inside this one house and it helps to convey this feeling of confinement. The transition of time was also created and edited well, making the shift in time feel seemless. The score by Daniel Hart is great, one of the best scores of the year. There’s something about David Lowery’s direction that makes the film work so well and I can’t quite pin down what it is just yet.
A Ghost Story isn’t for everyone, I can understand people who don’t really like it. It’s very slow and unconventional. As for me, although it is difficult for me to describe how I felt about the movie, upon further thought it just might be one of the best films of the year. I can see myself revisiting it and potentially appreciating it much more. I recommend seeing it but it’s not a movie that you can enjoy while having expectations, which is why I’m not telling you to expect anything. Just give it a chance, you may end up having one of the most unique and emotional experiences with a movie ever.
Review at my blog at thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/10/09/a-ghost-story-2017-review/
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. A Cure for Wellness
4. Dunkirk
5. War for the Planet of the Apes 6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. IT
11. Wind River
12. Wonder Woman
13. John Wick: Chapter 2
14. Baby Driver
15. The Big Sick
16. Split
17. Atomic Blonde
18. Annabelle Creation
19. The Discovery
20. Spider-Man Homecoming
21. Una
22. Ghost in the Shell
23. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
24. American Made
25. Kong: Skull Island
26. Fate of the Furious
27. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
28. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
29. Okja
30. Life
31. The Mummy
32. Beauty and the Beast
33. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
34. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
35. The Lego Batman Movie
36. Death Note
37. The Dark Tower
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 12, 2017 20:29:01 GMT
My review of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The horror genre has always been a hit or miss sort of movie. There are some movies which do scare me (Sinister and The Babadook) there are movies that don’t scare me (The Fog) and there are movies which are at times scary, the latter being the most common type. Because of the underwhelming feeling I felt after watching the original Friday the 13th, I was a little worried that Texas Chainsaw Massacre would be another movie that aged poorly. However I found myself quite enjoying The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It is still today quite an impressive film, especially for its time.
Out of the four slasher franchises (the other three being Halloween, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street), Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s first instalment was the closest to scaring me. The plot is set up well and paced (for the most part) at about 80 minutes, so it doesn’t overstay its welcome. The opening scene deserves credit in immediately grabbing your attention and setting the tone for the rest of the film. The first two acts go in and out of being well paced and being a little too slow, however once the main characters reach the house, that’s when the film really picks up. The film is surpirisingly well at creating and maintaining tension. The last act however is really great as further creepy and scary things happen and the tensions rise. There is particularly one scene at a table (without spoiling anything) which actually got under my skin.
The acting was pretty good by everyone. We don’t really know much about the main characters but they do pretty well with what they’ve got, particularly Marilyn Burns, especially in the later scenes of the movies. Along with the main characters being played well, the people who played the psychopathic characters are excellent, not just Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) although he is a standout amongst them. They were at least for me most of the scariest parts of the movie. One performance that really stood out to me was from Edwin Neal who makes his first appearance quite early on in the film. He makes such an impression.
This film has a very low budget of $300,000 but this film is still very effective. The film has a very realistic and raw look to it that really helps the film. Compared to horror movies of today, this movie isn’t quite as bloody, but when there is blood, the film uses practical effects and it does work much better, it doesn’t look cartoonishly over the top. For me, the more disturbing elements are brought out in the bizarre characters that our protagonists come across. Nonetheless, the violence is shocking and it’s effective in amping up the scares.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a classic horror film and if you are a big horror movie fan, this movie is essential to watch. It’s the horrific imagery, the unsettling feeling and scary performances that make it so effective. I can’t really comment on any of the other move in the series (with the exception of 2013’s Texas Chainsaw) but I can say that the 70s movie is really good.
My review at my blog thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/the-texas-chainsaw-massacre-1974-review/
On another note, how are you with horror movies? Are you a fan of them or not really?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 15, 2017 20:11:45 GMT
My review of T2: Trainspotting
only recently saw the original Trainspotting, it was definitely a unique movie, especially with its style and direction. 21 years later, director Danny Boyle and the cast from the original returned to deliver a sequel with these returning characters. A lot of sequels decades in the making don’t live up to the hype, it didn’t seem necessary to create a sequel, Trainspotting of all films definitely didn’t need a sequel. However, T2: Trainspotting was really pulled off well and now I’m glad they actually decided to go ahead with a sequel. Everyone returns to deliver a worthy sequel that is at the very least at the level of the original.
The issue that this film could face is that it could end up being a total departure or just a repeat and rehash of the original. Fortunately that’s not what happened here, it is new enough while still feeling like a Trainspotting movie. It really does feel like a continuation of the Trainspotting story, it definitely helped that John Dodge, the writer of the original film wrote the sequel as well. The film deals with addiction and other themes in a different way than the original. It doesn’t focus as much as drugs as the original, the issues that these characters are going through are more existential and a lot different. It handles everything overall in a more darker and mature way. You won’t see sequences that are absolutely bonkers like the toilet scene in the original. However, it is still full of that crazy energy from the original, just used in a different way. It is also very funny but its also very emotional too, it really balances everything out all things considering. I don’t really have many issues with the film to be honest.
The characters from the original film, Renton, Spud, Sick Boy and Begbie return, with Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle reprising their respective roles. They feel just like their characters, just 20 years older and they continue to share incredible chemistry. Most of the characters haven’t changed, Renton is the only one who has made a significant change since the end of the original film. We do also get to see more insight into their characters and their lives, the treatment of the characters was quite good. As I said previously, everyone is great here, but if there was a standout I’d say it is Spud, who has a surprisingly emotional story in T2. A new character is Anjela Nedyalkova as Veronika, Sick Boy’s girlfriend. She does a really great job in her scenes, having great chemistry with Jonny Lee Miller and Ewen Bremner. She also does very well at standing out amongst the four main characters, she definitely needs to be in more movies.
Danny Boyle returns to direct the sequel and really he’s the only person who should’ve directed a Trainspotting sequel. Boyle was once again great, he’s clearly evolved with his filmmaking style. He has combined his new filmmaking style with the style that he used back in 1996 with the original Trainspotting. You don’t get crazy visuals like the original with sequences like the toilet and the baby and others, not necessarily a bad thing, in fact the visual style is great for the story. The style is perfect, with the camerawork, editing and the framing being excellently done. It still has an erratic feeling to it that fits perfectly. The soundtrack in the original Trainspotting was great and that’s the same for the sequel, it fitted the movie and scenes so incredibly well.
The sequel to Trainspotting was the best it possibly could’ve been with its great script, the returning cast and Danny Boyle’s excellent direction. While they are at similar levels of quality, I personally liked Trainspotting 2 slightly more than the original. The best thing I can say is that it’s a perfect continuation of the story. If you liked the original film, I recommend at least checking out the sequel. Even if you might not consider it as good as the original, it’s still very close to be as good as the original. T2: Trainspotting was surprisingly great and one of my favourite films of the year.
Review at my blog at thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/t2-trainspotting-2017-review/
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. A Cure for Wellness
4. Dunkirk
5. War for the Planet of the Apes
6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. IT
11. Wind River 12. T2: Trainspotting
13. Wonder Woman
14. John Wick: Chapter 2
15. Baby Driver
16. The Big Sick
17. Split
18. Atomic Blonde
19. Annabelle Creation
20. The Discovery
21. Spider-Man Homecoming
22. Una
23. Ghost in the Shell
24. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
25. American Made 26. Personal Shopper
27. Kong: Skull Island
28. Fate of the Furious
29. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
30. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
31. Okja
32. Life
33. The Mummy
34. Beauty and the Beast
35. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
36. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
37. The Lego Batman Movie
38. Death Note
39. The Dark Tower
|
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Oct 16, 2017 20:36:13 GMT
Just watched McG`s new film The Babysitter and surprisingly didn`t hate it.It`s campy,trashy fun and might actually be the best thing he`s ever done,which isn`t saying a lot I know.  |
|
|
|
Post by nenya on Oct 16, 2017 21:06:08 GMT
campy is the word  but it's that time of the year, at one point, i wanted to kill that girl with a bullet in her boob myself :fight3: :halloween3: |
|
|
|
Post by mortimer605 on Oct 17, 2017 6:36:02 GMT
Sorry Lex Salander , no. Just no.
I liked it more than loved. When I saw it first time last week, I was a little disappointed after all these raves from critics. After 2nd viewing nothing has changed.
(There aren't many big spoilers here for someone who hasn't seen it but, nevertheless - don't read in that case)
Things I liked (among others):
- Cinematography (Roger Deakins YES !)
- The entire cast (Gos, Ford, all women; even Jared Leto who is obviously much better chameleon than actor )
- entire Las Vegas segment (especially holograms)
- Sean Young "cameo" (Very nostalgic for the fans of the 1st film)
- Final scene (it's genuinely moving but not on the poetic, simple, unexpected "Tears in Rain" level)
Things I didn't like:
- Some scenes are blatant rip-offs of other movies ("sex surrogate" scene is 99% the same as in Spike Jonze's Her (WTF ?); 'Luv' character is almost a direct copy from Terminator 3 villain; I even recognized some scenes from Matrix films and Ghost in the Shell)
- Hans Zimmer's score (except the homages to Vangelis); it was pretty uninspired. Nah...
- Pacing. The movie is long, it feels long and it really doesn't need to be THAT long. Believe me, I have no problem with slow movies (I'm fan of Tarkovsky and Malick) but the first half dragged on a bit. It wasn't boring but it could have been really shorter and nothing less effective.
- that fight with Luv at the end ? Yawn ! Compare this to the Deckard - Roy finale in the original. Not even close)
Thing I REALLY didn't like - while the movie doesn't end on a classic sequel hook, the ending is open enough for one to be possible. (Does this mean Blade Runner is a franchise now? Seriously ? I really hope NOT). Will the 3rd part be about replicant's rebel against Wallace (and other humans) ? That would be lame if you ask me and it has "I've been there already" written all over it.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's a very good movie - one of the most intelligent blockbusters in recent times, beautifully looking, certainly not to be missed on the big screen. It has many good things in it which Villeneuve handled very well; it's obvious he respects the 1st film. Yes, it looks pretty BUT...No way it's better than iconic first film. Nor it will be influential as much, no chance. Blade Runner (1982) worked because it was 1980s movie. It was fresh, different, weird, visionary, with important philosophical questions (even had that crazy punk touch of the decade). On the other hand, 2049 also asks interesting questions and expands the universe of the story but it feels rather generic compared to the original. It feels like we have already seen this movie many times in hundreds of other Sci-fi entries in the past 35 years (lone depressed hero searching for his identity, ruthless evil corporation, high-tech sex-surrogate scene, unstoppable female icy-bitch villain, robots/androids rebel against their human masters etc). Villeneuve is playing it a little too much safe here; he literally ticks all Blade Runner boxes. Also, I didn't like idea about replicants having children. If you think about it - that makes same sense as ageing terminators.
Overall, a very good movie, intelligent, with interesting ideas and expanded universe but also not very original, unnecessary overlong, with not especially charismatic characters (at least to me), no many memorable scenes or quotes.
If something came first, and made more original things, and then the sequel/reboot came and didn't bring anything new to the table, then does that mean that the 2nd movie is a masterpiece ? What 2010 was for 2001 that's Blade Runner 2049 for Blade Runner in my opinion. Prose to poetry. Voiceovers and not. The sequel to iconic, cult Sci-fi masterpiece nobody asked for. And honestly - was it really necessary ?
That said, for some of the reasons I stated above Blade Runner 2049 has a good chance to take place on my Top 10 of the year. A movie I would like to rewatch after some time again.
8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 22, 2017 21:00:51 GMT
My review of Personal Shopper
Personal Shopper was a film that I have been hearing things about for a while, most notably that this really divided audiences and that Kristen Stewart gave a fantastic performance. Aside from that, I didn’t really know what to expect, I knew of the general plot but I didn’t watch any of the trailers. Having seen finally it, I can say that Personal Shopper is a very unique story but its overall a solid movie with an intriguing story and a fantastic lead performance by Kristen Stewart stealing the show.
Personal Shopper is the type of movie that you sort of need to make sure you don’t have any false expectations going in. Despite it involving a ghost, it’s not just a ghost movie (it’s not a horror movie at all), and also despite the title “Personal Shopper”, it’s not just all about Stewart’s job. This movie is very unconventional in its story and the way it tells its story. It is full of different plotlines, one is Kristen’s job as a personal shopper, another is the ghost story and another involving Kristen receiving text messages by some mysterious source. Not all the aspects of the plot gel that well together, and the personal shopper plotline wasn’t always interesting. With that said, I was invested in the story, it is quite different from anything I’ve seen to be honest. It did take me a while to understand the end of the movie, but when I finally did it made my opinion on the overall movie much more positive. I won’t say too much about the plot, it’s really something that you need to experience for yourself without knowing too much. This film moves at quite a slow and steady pace, most of it works but at times it’s a little too slow, even for its 1 hour and 45 minute runtime. Honestly, I don’t know if you’ll like the movie, you just sort of need to try for yourself and see if you enjoy it.
The best part of the whole film is Kristen Stewart, she is absolutely fantastic, in fact this is the best performance I’ve seen from her yet. Her character has to go through a lot in this movie and its very easy to buy her in her role. Personal Shopper is a character driven drama and everything is riding on her performance. Fortunately, Stewart is amazing, she definitely deserves a lot of praise for this. Everyone else is pretty good in their roles but Stewart is really the highlight of the cast and the movie.
The overall direction by Olivier Assayas was pretty good and worked for the movie. In the suspension scenes (even though there aren’t many), they were surprisingly effective, they were quite tense. Personal Shopper also does incredibly well at giving off an uneasy creeping feeling, you can tell that something is wrong, and this feeling is constant throughout the entire film. The direction was solid overall.
Personal Shopper is definitely a unique and different movie that not everyone is going to like. It is a bit unconventional with its story and the storytelling methods but it personally really worked for me, and I was mostly invested in the film from start to finish. I’m not sure if I’d call it a great movie but I do think that at the very least, it’s worth watching for Kristen Stewart’s fantastic performance, truly one of the best performances of the year.
Review at my blog at thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/10/23/personal-shopper-2017-review/
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. A Cure for Wellness
4. Dunkirk
5. War for the Planet of the Apes
6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. IT
11. Wind River
12. T2: Trainspotting
13. Wonder Woman
14. John Wick: Chapter 2
15. Baby Driver
16. The Big Sick
17. Split
18. Atomic Blonde
19. Annabelle Creation
20. The Discovery
21. Spider-Man Homecoming
22. Una
23. Ghost in the Shell
24. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
25. American Made
26. Personal Shopper
27. Kong: Skull Island
28. Fate of the Furious
29. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
30. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
31. Okja
32. Life
33. The Mummy
34. Beauty and the Beast
35. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
36. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
37. The Lego Batman Movie
38. Death Note
39. The Dark Tower
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Oct 29, 2017 19:31:59 GMT
My review of Thor Ragnarok
Thor Ragnarok was one of my most anticipated films of 2017, it seemed to be a very unique entry into the MCU. The addition of actors like Cate Blanchett, Karl Urban, Jeff Goldblum had me interested. But the aspect that intrigued me most of all was that Taika Waititi of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and What We do in the Shadows fame was directing, it was certainly an odd choice for presumably the final Thor movie. Ragnarok from everything that we’ve been seeing looked like a weird 80s action sci-fi comedy, it looked so bizarre and off from whatever we were expecting that I just had to know what it was like. Overall, Thor Ragnarok is a fun time, Taika’s direction and writing definitely made this a very unique film that is undoubtedly entertaining.
The first act has some pacing issues, it moves quite slow until Hela shows up for the first time, then the pacing starts sorting itself out. Most of the film is focussing on Thor on Sakaar, then occasionally it will cut back to Asgard with Hela (the main villain), almost out of obligation to show that she is still in this movie. The second half however was more consistently solid. Yes there is a lot of comedy but don’t just mistake it as being just Guardians of the Galaxy with Thor in it. If you’ve seen Taika’s other movies, you can tell that is definitely a Taika Watiti film. The comedy here is not the same as the comedy in the other Marvel movies, its self deprecating, it’s not afraid to make fun of itself, it goes full bonkers at times, so its not just something you usually see. This is actually the most funny of the MCU film, some of the jokes were quite simply hysterical. The question is, does Taika’s tone and direction work for the movie? For the most part.
First thing I want to get out of the way is that this is not a Thor movie, even Thor: The Dark World, arguably the worst Thor movie (as well as the worst MCU film) felt more like a Thor movie than Ragnarok. It feels like Taika Waititi doing this bizarre sci-fi action comedy, that just so happens to be starring Thor and featuring the potential threat of Asgard. To be honest, I’m not really sure those two aspects work well together, especially as the cutting back to Hela in Asgard felt out of place seemed (like I said) out of obligation to briefly show what was going on there. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the tone was misplaced. One thing I can praise Ragnarok for doing is that it separates the dramatic scenes from the comedic scenes, it doesn’t ruin an emotional scene with some misplaced joke (which has become a problem with many of the MCU films as of late). So its not that the comedy ruined the emotional scenes, its that I just didn’t feel that personally connected to the story. I just feel like I should really be caring much more about what’s going on than I actually end up doing, even most scenes that were meant to be emotional didn’t really hit. Aside from that, there’s nothing really here storywise that I have a major issue with. For what Taika was going for, he did a great job with it.
Chris Hemsworth looks like he’s having a blast playing Thor and Tom Hiddleston is once again great as Loki, they work off each other great. Mark Ruffalo was also good, we see the Hulk more than we see Bruce Banner, we actually have The Hulk speaking and interacting and it was an interesting angle to take on him. The supporting cast was also good with actors like Karl Urban and Anthony Hopkins. Idris Elba gets the most to do as Heimdall in any of the Thor movies. Jeff Goldblum is in this movie and this is the most Jeff Goldblum that Jeff Goldblum has ever been. It felt like Taika just wanted Jeff Goldblum to be all Jeff Goldblumy, he doesn’t play a very significant or threatening character. I didn’t mind that, he was undoubtedly fun to watch. Taika Waititi himself plays (motion captures/voices) a character named Korg, who was definitely one of the stand out characters. He was so hilarious and Taika’s voice performance played a big part in that. But the stand out character to me was Tessa Thompson’s Valkyrie, such a welcome addition to the MCU. I can’t wait to see more of her in future MCU films. Cate Blanchett is Hela, the main villain here. Is she great? Yes and no. She is undoubtedly one of the better MCU villains, and Blanchett’s performance is fantastic, making the character even better. However, to put it simply, we didn’t get enough of her. As I said, the first half of the movie mostly takes place where Thor is and every so often we get a brief scene with Hela. By the second half we start getting the appropriate number of scenes with her but we really didn’t get to see Hela doing a lot. She is great in the scenes that she’s in however, she feels like a threat, was acted very well and wasn’t as one dimensional as I thought she may end up being. She was also better than most MCU villains, so that’s always nice to see. There are also some hilarious cameos.
The action was generally well filmed. Most of the CGI looks fantastic and some of the shots are absolutely beautiful. Other times it looks really fake looking. When the film is set in practical locations it is great, a loft of the time the production design, costumes, makeup all work to give a unique look. It really does embrace the world of Sakaar and make it something truly different. However Asgard just looks okay, really Kenneth Branagh is the only director who has managed to make Asgard look like something special. The score by Mark Mothersbaugh is pretty good, slightly more memorable than most of the other MCU scores.
I had a fun time with Thor Ragnarok and it’s probably the best MCU film this year. With entertaining characters and most of all Taika’s writing, Thor Ragnarok was a very unique comic book movie. I’m not really sure if Thor was the best character or series for Taika to use for his crazy ideas, and some of the emotional scenes don’t hit as hard as they should’ve but for the most part Ragnarok gets it right. So I do recommend watching it, its at the very least entertaining.
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. Dunkirk
4. War for the Planet of the Apes 5. A Cure for Wellness
6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. Wind River 11. John Wick Chapter 2
12. T2: Trainspotting
13. Wonder Woman
14. IT
15. Baby Driver
16. The Big Sick
17. Split 18. Thor Ragnarok
19. Atomic Blonde
20. Annabelle Creation
21. The Discovery
22. Spider-Man Homecoming
23. Una
24. Ghost in the Shell
25. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
26. American Made
27. Personal Shopper
28. Kong: Skull Island
29. Fate of the Furious
30. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
31. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
32. Okja
33. Life
34. The Mummy
35. Beauty and the Beast
36. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
37. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
38. The Lego Batman Movie
39. Death Note
40. The Dark Tower
41. Rings
|
|
|
|
Post by LaraQ on Oct 30, 2017 14:23:30 GMT
If you`re looking for a really fun, entertaining film to watch this Halloween , check out Happy Death Day.I saw it at the weekend and I was really surprised at how good it was.A solid 8/10. :halloween2: :halloween4: :halloween1:
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 2, 2017 19:28:33 GMT
My review of The Ring I have been meaning to watch The Ring for a while, I’ve heard so much about it. When it comes to modernday horror, The Ring is one of the most noteworthy films, and so I was excited to finally see it. While not one of the most scary horror movies ever made, it was a very well done horror mystery film. Gore Verbinskidid such a great job at making this movie more than just a typical scary flick, and made it much better than I thought it would be. The Ring is a remake of the Japanese film Ringufrom 1998, I can’t comment on how it works as a remake as I’ve never seen the original. Now I didn’t find The Ring to be a very scary movie, but to be fair that’s the case with most horror movies. Also, I didn’t get the feeling that this was meant to be a full on scare-fest. This was a mystery film, with Naomi Watts investigating to find out what is happening. It neverfeels like the movie is just trying to scare people, it feels like its trying to tell a compelling story. The story is very interesting, the mythology of the tape was intriguing. Also the waythat the movie gave the information felt just right, it didn’t just information dump constantly like some lesser mystery stories often do. The Ring it does have some horror elements which were implemented very well. It has this dark uncomfortable feeling throughout the whole movie, nothing feels out of place tonally. It doesn’t go for a cheap scare, the pacing is constant and works well. If there was an issue with the story, I’d say is that the ending does feel quite abrupt. However that’s it, everything else is great. One issue that this movie has is that there isn’tmuch in the way of characterisation, but the acting generally makes up for it. Naomi Watts is really good as the lead characterinvestigating what happened with this mysterious tape. Other actors like Martin Henderson and Brian Cox were pretty good as well. Naomi’s kid played by David Dorfmanwas fine but not exactly great, he worked well enough for the film. Gore Verbinksidirects this movie very well. Some of the more ‘scary’ moments are well known to audiences familiar with the horror genre, so you might find them more scary if you haven’t seen them before. For themost part though, the film doesn’t rely on jump scares or really scares in general. It has a pretty cold, unnerving feeling throughout. While very slick and polished to perfection, the direction doesn’t feel hollywisedand glossy, it feels pretty gloomy. The blue colour pallet, the use of water and wide camera pans and more were so great. Verbinski’sdirection played a huge part in the movie working well. Hans Zimmer’s score also added so muchto the movie, it is so beautifully done and can inject a littledose of uneasiness into some of the scenes. The Ring is a solid horror mystery film, greatly directed by Gore Verbinski. Its just so well put together, it surprised me how much effort was put into making this a genuinely intriguing mystery, not just a horror movie. If you like horror movies you should definitely giveit a watch. It has some issues like the characterisation was pretty weak and I didn’t personally find it scary (though that maydiffer depending on the viewer) but everything else is done well. My review of The Ring thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/11/03/the-ring-2002-review/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 5, 2017 21:53:31 GMT
My review of Rings
I reviewed The Ring a while ago, it was a very solid horror movie which actually was a very intriguing mystery that didn’t resort to cheap scares like a lot of horror movies do. I never saw The Ring Two but from what I heard it wasn’t very good. 15 years after the first film was released comes Rings, which looked like a way to bring back a well known horror property to make money. It also didn’t look very good. And Rings was pretty what I expected, a mediocre, boring and jumpscare filled movie which really falls flat.
It turns out you don’t really need to watch the previous Ring movies, Rings almost feels like a soft reboot. The early scenes of Rings are absolutely dreadfully bad, like terrible. Notable is the very first scene which takes place on a plane, it feels so out of place, the dialogue is terrible, everything is so over the top. That whole segment was dreadful. Fortunately the rest of the movie isn’t in that level of quality but it’s still pretty bad. The movie is actually more mystery based and on paper that doesn’t sound too bad, Verbinski’s Ring was more of a mystery movie to me. However not only is the mystery aspect uninteresting, it feels like its trying to be a horror movie with all these random jumpscares. The worldbuilding that the movie does is unnecessary and nothing really all that great. The movie is so unengaging, so mediocre that it’s hard to care about anything that’s going on. On another note, the trailer not only spoiled a lot of the movie and featured some scenes that didn’t appear at all in the final film, it downright lied about the direction of the story. So if you want to for whatever reason watch Rings, don’t watch the trailers.
If you remember my review for The Ring, you’ll remember that I thought one of the weak points was the characters, they just weren’t given enough depth or development. The characters in Rings make the characters in The Ring look 4 dimensional, there is not one thing I remember about any of the characters, they just do things in the movie to move the plot forward but lacked any strong personality or character. The acting is mediocre from pretty much everyone, though I can’t imagine anyone being able to do a good job with this material. The only person who particularly stands out is Vincent D’Onofrio, who is the best part of the movie but is not in the movie much. Nevertheless he gives it his all.
The Ring was so well directed by Gore Verbinski, giving it such a creeping and uneasy feeling. Even when nothing particularly scary was going on, the tone was constant. The direction for Rings on the other hand is not good, more along the lines of a typical mediocre horror movie, which is what Rings is. It doesn’t know how to establish any form of atmosphere, we are just watching events take place without feeling anything. Also unlike the original Ring, there are plenty of jump scares, none of them being effective in the slightest. The CGI is also pretty fake looking.
Rings was just what I expected, a poor and mediocre attempt at a horror movie. The characters are flat, the story is uninteresting, the scares don’t work, it’s just not good at all. I have seen worse horror movies, it just felt below average and lackluster. Even if you liked the original Ring, you probably won’t like this.
Review at my blog at thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/rings-2017-review/
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. War for the Planet of the Apes 4. Dunkirk
5. A Cure for Wellness
6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. Wind River
11. John Wick Chapter 2
12. T2: Trainspotting
13. Wonder Woman
14. IT
15. Baby Driver
16. The Big Sick
17. Split
18. Thor Ragnarok
19. Atomic Blonde
20. Annabelle Creation
21. The Discovery
22. Spider-Man Homecoming
23. Una
24. Ghost in the Shell
25. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
26. American Made
27. Personal Shopper
28. Kong: Skull Island
29. Fate of the Furious
30. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
31. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
32. Okja
33. Life
34. The Mummy
35. Beauty and the Beast
36. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
37. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
38. The Lego Batman Movie
39. Death Note
40. The Dark Tower
41. xXx: Return of Xander Cage 42. Rings
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Salander on Nov 12, 2017 21:01:55 GMT
My review of 2017's Murder on the Orient Express
I was curious about Murder on the Orient Express, I had never read the original book or watched any adaptations. It was the cast and crew involved that had me interested, especially with Kenneth Branagh directing and starring. As someone who hasn’t seen any version of the story beforehand, I ended up thoroughly enjoyed Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express. The performances (particularly from Kenneth Branagh) and the direction really make this movie. It does have some issues (particularly with its characters) but its good elements far outweigh the weaker elements overall.
I can’t comment on any similarities and differences between this and the original book or other adaptations, so I’ll just treat it as its own thing. It’s not a flashy typical Hollywood whodunit, it is slower paced and feels restrained. I can see a lot of people getting bored of this movie so if you’re going to see it just know that it is very slow paced. The pacing didn’t bother me personally, it felt just right. I was quite intrigued throughout the whole movie, my attention didn’t waver once. This movie has a surprisingly amount of effective humour, especially from Branagh’s Poirot. One issue that I had is that there is so much going on that at times it is hard to follow. At the end, even though I understood most of what happened, I had to look up the plot to clarify certain things. You have to be paying close attention or you could miss details, I know because I was paying attention and I didn’t pick up all of it. The second problem and probably the biggest problem is the handling of the supporting characters. The supporting characters aren’t developed or fleshed out that well. You might be able to remember some aspect about them (like in terms of the actor or the character’s job) but that’s about it. So when names are being thrown all about by Poirot as he theorises what happened, it’s a little jarring and at times hard to follow what’s going on. Its hard to remember these supporting characters, I can barely remember any of the supporting characters’ names, save for a couple.
This movie has a lot of A list actors but the true star of this movie is Kenneth Branagh as Hercule Poirot. He is a little over the top but it works, Hercule is a quirky and likable character and its basically worth watching the movie for this performance alone. Also he manages to sell that over the top handlebar moustache. We have a large and talented supporting cast with Willem Dafoe, Daisy Ridley, Judi Dench, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer, Olivia Colman, Penelope Cruz, Leslie Odom Jr., Johnny Depp and others. For many of those who have had long careers like Judi Dench and Willem Dafoe, their performances here aren’t going to rank up as one of their best but they play their part well, in fact everyone plays their parts rather well. A stand out to me was Josh Gad, who surprised me, he’s usually known for comedic roles in movies like Frozen and Beauty and the Beast. But here he proves that he is really good in a dramatic role. Even Johnny Depp was good, granted his performance was one of the weaker performances and he doesn’t have a massive amount of screentime. As I said, the actors played their roles well, it’s just that the characters really weren’t that fleshed out that well aside from Hercule. I have no issues about the acting however.
Kenneth Branagh directs the film very well. The cinematography is truly great, it’s beautiful looking. The long takes also help show just how big of scale everything is. It makes use of its locations very well. The editing also was top notch and worked well, especially in the scenes where Poirot is piecing together what happened.
I’m not sure how much you’ll like 2017 Murder on the Orient Express. I think you will at the very least appreciate and enjoy Kenneth Branagh’s performance and his direction. Personally, I really liked it, with the acting (especially from Kenneth Branagh) and the direction and the plot which is mostly done well. There are some aspects that didn’t quite work in terms of some of the characters but for the most part this movie does everything right. Branagh has mentioned that he was interested in doing more films with the character of Poirot and I am completely on board for that. I’d love to see him make a return.
Review of Murder on the Orient Express at my blog: thecinemacritic.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/murder-on-the-orient-express-2017-review/
Ranking of 2017 movies:
1. Blade Runner 2049
2. Logan
3. War for the Planet of the Apes
4. Dunkirk
5. A Cure for Wellness
6. A Ghost Story
7. Alien Covenant
8. Mother!
9. Get Out
10. Wind River
11. John Wick Chapter 2
12. T2: Trainspotting
13. Wonder Woman
14. IT
15. The Big Sick 16. Baby Driver
17. Split
18. Atomic Blonde
19. Thor Ragnarok 20. Spider-Man Homecoming 21. Murder on the Orient Express
22. Annabelle Creation
23. The Discovery
24. Una 25. King Arthur: Legend of the Sword
26. American Made
27. Personal Shopper 28. Personal Shopper
29. Kong: Skull Island
30. Fate of the Furious
31. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2
32. Kingsman: The Golden Circle
33. Okja
34. Life
35. The Mummy
36. Beauty and the Beast
37. Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets
38. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales
39. The Lego Batman Movie
40. Death Note
41. The Dark Tower
42. xXx: Return of Xander Cage
43. Rings
|
|
Carla Gugino did a great job! Carel Struycken as Moonlight Man was creeping me out, he always is 
