Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
In NO particular order.
Get Out (2017)
Talk about abolishing stereotypes...
Get Out is one big long stereotype from the stereotypical racist white cop to the stereotypical racist white parents and stereotypical racist white neighborhood.
It's even stereotyped down to the mysterious Gardner and maid.
So here's the breakdown:
Get Out is a movie about stereotypical whites in white neighborhoods being racist to blacks whose supposed moral is about trying to abolish racism and racial stereotypes.
Yeah white neighborhoods are big bad places. I'm sure black neighborhoods are paradises that whites don't have to worry about not getting killed in. But cliché funny looks and garden gnomes are more mean and scary than drivebys. What a joke. Blacks have reason and probably are more scared in their own neighborhoods than white neighborhoods, so the movie fails on any attempt at valid social commentary.
Huge plot point: White female main character from stereotypical white racist neighborhood dates black guy. Somehow she missed the memo on having to be racist to blacks. Shoot. And this movie is supposed to be about racist white people.
Racist white cop: That's never been done before. Yeah let's all ignore the FBI statistic that found white cops use more force on whites than blacks in the exact same situations. Plus Hispanic officers are more likely to use their guns on blacks followed by guess who? Black cops. But those stats have to be racist right?
Perhaps it's even more comical once your realize that Get Out's number one source of revenue was from white people from said stereotypical racist white neighborhoods. Who would've thought that a large chunk of box office dollars would be coming from people who are supposedly more inclined to be racists?
And what's probably the number one race, employer and audience for helping make Jordan Peele successful? What would you wanna bet whites from white neighborhoods?
This is not even close to being a landmark movie about racism. I'd strongly recommend In The Heat of The Night and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? instead. Except those movies speak of judging people by their individual actions and not race.
The implicit moral in this spin off/remake is about trying to achieve racial harmony through more collectivism (the parent of racism) and stereotyping. Brilliant.
I'm going to forward this review as a memo to the black homeowners association president of my white neighborhood. And what kind of neighborhood does Jordan Peele live in?
Basically a remake of Battle For The POTA
My stupid millennial generation has GOT TO STOP thinking these AVERAGE 7 hour and 31 minute CGI epics are the finest thing filmmaking has to offer in the history of cinema. The disease is taking it's toll and LOT of average filmmakers who think they're all artsy-fartsy are getting hard penises because they think that whenever they go and make a new BATMAN (wow definitely not overrated there !) or REMAKE/REBOOT a film series that's been around for over 40 years now they're making Citizen Kanes - NOT REALLY.
The internet generation (which I have disassociated myself with - you'll notice I'm a contextual thinker and can recognize 100 year old marketing trends and even though there's new and younger people on the planet they still fall for the same crap that's been around for thousands of years) has the most amount of knowledge at their fingertips yet half of the techno-dicks that see this movie - or any movie ! (cell phone in hand) couldn't tell you that Planet of The Apes is based off of a French 1963 novel which was made into a 1968 movie, with 4 sequels (70 - 73), then came a TV series (1974), then came a Saturday morning cartoon (75 - 76), and then came a bad remake of the original in 2001. So now that we've stripped this generation of it's originality I can say this movie is in fact good (perhaps better than most movies to come out of S***wood these days), but is literally almost a frame by frame remake of BATLLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973) - the last ORIGINAL APES movie to hit the big screen for which it's working title was, RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES.
In Dawn of POTA: After a huge all out war and disease humans and apes are living in a post-apocalyptic world. Humans are out hiking in the woods to find other life or remnants of Apes. Humans are caught by Apes. Ape leader Caesar is warned we must attack them before they attack us (they were here to scout out their battle strategy) by a rebellious fellow ape, Koba. Koba is very hotheaded and hates humans. Blah, blah, blah, a lot of stuff happens with Apes jumping around, eventually Caesar lets the humans come into their territory to work on a dam that will help generate electricity to the human's hideout. Blah, blah, blah, blah, Caesar's wife is pregnant and gets ready to have a baby but there's complications - lot's of tender moments. More stuff happens eventually Caesar is shot by the treasonous ape, Koba - BUT Koba convinces the fellow apes it was human who did it (if you're not familiar with the previous 10 reincarnations of POTA humans and apes don't tend to get along or trust each other). Koba leads a revolt on the humans with all out warfare while declaring marshal law. Caesar meanwhile is taken captive and treated by humans (who have been nice the whole time to Apes). Eventually there's an all out battle between humans and apes. Eventually Caesar returns to them and tells them basically he's okay (apes turn to Caesar) and Koba is a traitor who shot him (bringing in this whole thing that humans and apes have the same vices and the phrase Ape Shall Not Kill Ape is garbage). Caesar eventually kills Koba by throwing him off a steel girder to his death. The End - oh wow that made me text my girlfriend about how cool it was in my Aeropostale jeans that are now wet from this CGI Andy Serkis excitement.
In Battle For The POTA: After a huge all out war between humans and apes, they now live together in a village (however Apes are the rulers while humans are reduced to servants). Caesar gets curious and wants to venture out to the Forbidden City to see if there's any remnants of human life and see video footage of his parents, Cornelius and Zira, for knowledge about earth's future. While hiking over there Caesar, a fellow Orangutan, and his human assistant are caught by human survivors who are radiation crazed war hungry mutants. Mutant scouts report back to their leader who jumps to the conclusion that the Apes want war and that they should attack them - they were here to scout out their battle strategy. Caesar returns to Ape City where he tells the apes of the humans living in the city. Gen. Aldo - a strong hotheaded rebellious gorilla who hates humans and wants to kill them all, tells Caesar the mutants need to be killed before they kill us - ANY SIMILARITIES YET ? Blah, blah, blah, Caesar's son is killed by Gen. Aldo (but Aldo tries to convince others it was done by a human) - tender moments with Caesar and his son. Aldo then takes Ape City under marshal law and declares all out war against the humans with his fellow apes. Blah, blah, blah, a battle occurs. Eventually the entire mutant army is either killed or taken prisoner by the Apes. Gen. Aldo returns from battle and is confronted by Caesar who wants to overthrow his rule and kill all humans. The apes turn to Caesar. Eventually Caesar kills Aldo by throwing him from a really tall tree to his death. The apes then realizes Apes and humans have the same vices as each other and need to live in harmony. The End - Plagiarism ? Basically because no credit was given to this movie's creators in Dawn (which going by the English language definition of dawn shouldn't have been called Dawn).
The screen credits should say, "Based off or characters created by PIERRE BOULLE, and based off a story by PAUL DEHN which was then written into a screenplay by JOYCE & WILLIAM CORRINGTON".
The Legend of Hell House (1973)
Richard Matheson's LOW point
Richard Matheson is a GOD when it comes to horror/sci-fi stories. He wrote the scripts to some of the best Twilight Zone episodes, his screenplays for movies and other TV shows never disappoint. His novels are in high acclaim. But it all comes sliding straight down into a dumpster with this movie adaptation of his novel, Hell House.
For one thing the plot of the movie or at least the exact mission of the people who are investigating Hell house isn't really sure. This dying old rich man hires a physicist, a spiritual medium, and a physical medium to go investigate this old supposedly haunted house with the expressed purpose of finding out if there's life after death. Okay, that's fine, but could you please follow up on it ?
They stay in the house while the physicist conducts experiments using the mediums. Stupid experiments like testing one of the medium's blood pressure and pulse rate. I had no idea that whenever I went to the doctors they were testing for evidence of the after life ! The whole point of their mission gets buried up when the female medium begins saying that the owner of the house had a son. Okay ? So ? They have lengthy discussions and even quarrels over whether or not the owner had a son. Who cares that's not even the point of them being there ! Do you want to know why the house is haunted by demonic spirits in the first place ? Roddy McDowall's character says why in one of the most stupidest monologues in a horror film which amounts to sex, drugs, alcohol, and vampirism being responsible for the evilness. May as well throw in Rock 'N' Roll too. Couldn't Matheson have just not have told us why so it would seem possibly more mysterious and perhaps a bit more scary ? Could the answer have been more cliché ? That could be any American household for all we know. The investigation then winds down into trying to rid the house of its evil spirits. I thought this was about finding out about if the after life exists or not. Or no wait, I thought it was about the owner's son ?
The physicist isn't really a strong character. He always has a perplexed look on his face and spends a lot of scenes lying on a bed talking or sleeping. And how does he test for the spirit life ? He hooks the female medium up to a machine that measures her pulse rate. I guess everyone in a hospital is part of an experiment to see if the afterlife exists as well. His wife comes along for the ride and is a totally throwaway character who does nothing.
The only legitimate performances are Roddy McDowall's and Pamela Frankin. They're at least interesting.
The film does have a decent chilling atmosphere, but nothing too scary happens. There are however good special effects such as when the furniture in the dining room gets thrown around at them, but other than that nothing too exciting. They find a skeleton in the basement with (insert dramatic music for the Puritans watching this) what looks like to be a bottle that once held .... alcohol (insert thunder and lightening here). Blood seeps out of a shower, but its revealed to be a dead cat, a perfectly natural occurrence. And an embalmed dead guy in a chair who was the owner of the house (who is Michael Gough in a surprising uncredited appearance) . That's the only way I can really discuss this movie as isolated occurrences. The narrative of this movie is set up as a journal almost. Each scene gives the date and time written across the screen. Just a minor complaint, but sometimes it'll say Dec. 23 7:30 AM. Then the next time will be something like Dec. 23 8:30 PM. What did they do in between ? Aren't you curious too ? Sometimes the scenes will go on with only one character or two characters. Where are the other two ? There's only four people in this house are the others off investigating or still sleeping ? It's never followed up on.
And in the end they bring in a huge machine that sucks out all of the spirit life. What ??? So this entire time the physicist knew spirits existed ? I mean they have a machine that gets rid of them. He could've just told the old man at the beginning that yes spirits exist and there most likely is an afterlife.
This is really a low point for such a great writer. In contrast the TV movie, The Night Strangler, with a Matheson original script, came out the same exact year as this and it almost seems like when compared that they were written by two different writers.
The Monkees (1966)
Davy, you will be missed.
In 1963, producer Bob Rafelson was touring with band in Mexico when he got the idea of doing a TV series about the adventures of musical act. At first exception of this idea was hard to come by, but by 1964 all had changed. This new British band called The Beatles was all the rage and developing the show couldn't have more easier now. Teaming up with executive producer, Bert Schneider at Screen Gems-Columbia, work was set out to develop the concept of the show. Although these two are credited as forming the concept of the TV show, two other figures also played an important role in developing the show. They were Paul Mazursky and Larry Tucker. At first names were tossed around such as The Creeps (yuck !) before they finally settled on The Monkees. Monkeys here is spelled 'Monkees' in homage to Beetles being spelled 'Beatles'. In 1965 a cattle call was announced turning up hundreds of musicians, actors, and hopefuls to try in get a part as member of this new TV show about a quartet of musicians. The Lovin' Spoonful who were in the early stages of their career auditioned. Future legendary singer and songwriter, Paul Williams auditioned, as well as Steven Stills, soon to be in Crosby, Stills, & Nash. After many auditions it was decided that Michael Nesmith, a struggling folk singer, Davy Jones, Tony-nominated Broadway performer and singer, Micky Dolenz, former child star and rising musician, and Peter Tork, folk singer and part time dishwasher, would make Rafelson and Schneider's ideal persona for The Monkees. In the fall of '66 after releasing a smash single and album to tie in with the upcoming TV series, The Monkees aired on NBC with a bang, soon crawling up to one of the most watched shows on TV at the time. Monkeemania swept the swinging teenage scene as The Monkees soon knocked The Beatles and The Rolling Stones off the music charts in sales as well as their soon to be Emmy-award winning TV series dominated the tube. The Monkees was a groundbreaking success in TV. Marrying a TV with music resulted in an earth shattering event that would forever effect how music can be enjoyed. Seriously, look at some of the romps on the show. The editing and camera work is fantastic and ahead of its time. Of course today it may seem hard to look back and see how groundbreaking this show was since we see it all the time today on TV. But back in 1966, no one had ever really come close to doing this sort of thing except for The Beatles in their movies A Hard Day's Night (1964) and Help ! (1965). The show also broke the fourth wall with its "looseness". Such as having outtakes and the Monkees themselves talking to the camera acknowledging that they're on a TV show edited into the episodes. So many examples can be given that I'd could write a whole book. Almost every gag you see on crappy kids TV shows today, is used in this here show. Big Time Rush is a major crappy rip-off of this show, that I think the producers should dedicate every episode by saying, "Without The Monkees none of this garbage would be possible". Its a crazy show and still can relate to even today's kids. I guarantee that if Nickelodeon or Disney picked this up with re-runs kids would go bananas for The Monkees. The Monkees shouldn't be forgotten and are an important part of music and entertainment history, I don't care what Yann Weiner or whoever the hell says.
Skyfall spelled backwards is Straw Dogs!
Its 2012, and James Bond has reached full circle to its 50th anniversary. Over 20 films later and here we are. I'd say more about the James Bond franchise, but I'm limited at 1,000 words.
Skyfall is about a breach in the MI6 network. It is unsure as to who is doing it. Are they are group of organized criminals or individuals with a common goal. The top protector of the British government is at stake and is headed for the throat of 007's superior, M.
Its really the only Bond movie I can think of that plays out as more of a mystery than a full out action film - even though there is plenty of action. I don't agree with it being the best Bond - since I think every Bond film has its moments and characters. Craig's approach to Bond is similar as to how Ian Fleming had written the character. Timothy Dalton also had this same approach as well since he was known to reference Fleming's original novels on set. But as great as Fleming's novels are, are I still feel that Bond needs to get back to its cinematic roots as a fantasy action hero. In the present day world of action movies there is too much of an emphasis on realism. James Bond movies used to be like comic books. A world of (I can't emphasize it enough) fantasy - sometimes it got really surreal and others on the edge of goofy. And that's why I think people today appreciate older films less - simply because they're more like movies. If you want something to be realistic - fine ! Watch the news. But I feel that we could make less ordinary movies if we make movies more like movies. When a Bond movies comes out its usually a big deal, but I feel that if this wasn't a James Bond movie -who would really even turn their head. If this wasn't a James Bond movie would you have actually seen it ? Or at least made a big deal about seeing it ? Would it have made it to number 1 at the box office ? Daniel Craig has resurrected the Bond movies from Pierce Brosnan's irritating contributions to the franchise. But even Brosnan's movies had that fantasy edge to them even though it didn't really play off too well in the end.
Skyfall has also done something special since it ties some of its strings to this year being the 50th anniversary of the James Bond films. It brings back the iconic Aston Martin DB5 and has him utilize it the most since Thunderball (1965). Even though it has appeared in Goldenye (1995) and Craig's Casino Royale (2006) since. It ties together fresh new events with a tribute type fashion to the Bond films from back in the day. Want to know how much of a fan I am ? Well, let's just say I got really excited when it not only showed the DB5 and Bond got to use its machine guns, but also when he goes to the new MI6 headquarters to find it resembling how it has looked throughout the Bond films of the 60s to the early 80s. Complete with the two padded door entrance into M's office ! This film also brings back two iconic Bond characters, Moneypenny and Q. Two characters who were last seen in Die Another Day (2003). The Q is fine - he just doesn't look the part. Although I'm a little confused as to how they are playing along in relation to the other Bond films, since it appears this is Bond's first time meeting Moneypenny. Ever so seldom do Bonds make references to the previous movies, but are they trying to enter Bond into some sort of paradox ? But one part that made me pull my hair out was when they talk of James Bond's parents and how they were supposedly killed and how it crushed teenage James Bond's life. I know what Sam Mendes is trying to do, he's trying to make James Bond's motives for being a spy killing off bad guys left and right to be a result of the traumatic loss of his parents. This is puts a pretty bad stain into the James Bond legacy and may even cause a tare if they play on this motive in the future films. Why do we need to have James Bond be this troubled youth and give him crime fighting motives that someone like Batman should have ? Can't James Bond just be as is ? Do we need to know his biography or who is grounds keeper was from his childhood ? Less explanation the better. I even thought they took a big liberty when they showed where Bond lives in Live and Let Die. I'm not claiming that Bond shouldn't have feelings, I'm just saying we don't need to tag along all this back story crap to his character. Ever wonder what it would be like if Straw Dogs was a James Bond movie ? Well, see the ending and you'll know what I mean. Skyfall is better than Quantum of Solace and I look forward to the next installment in the James Bond legacy.
The Three Stooges (2012)
"Where's Ya Dignity ?"
Originally a Vaudville based act starting in the early 30s, The Three Stooges are one of the longest running comedy teams in show business famous for their slapstick antics. The trio consisting of Moe, Larry, and Curly, sometimes alternating between other members Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe, lasted all the way up to 1970, not something many people know. Their claim to fame was making short subjects, which were popular in 30s and 40s cinema and were shown before the main attraction in theaters. The latter part of their career was spent making movies and later a cartoon series (anyone know of the 70s cartoon series where the played super heroes ?). The Stooges have made a major impression of comedy and are studies in film schools for comedic timing and improv. Today, none of the original Stooges remain, but their influence still remains, enough of it for the Farrelly Brothers to make a nice tribute film to the Stooges. Watching the trailer numerous times you wonder how could this be pulled off ? The original Stooges films have been around for so long and Moe, Larry, and Curly all made such an impression in their characters that you'd think it wouldn't be the same without they themselves. Well, its not the same, but.....
The film is broken down into three episodes or sections or shorts ?.... call them whatever you call them, I really don't see why, the movie would flow finely without them. The Stooges have their beginnings as orphans at an orphanage run by a cast of nuns (one played perfectly silly by not too seriously by Curb Your Enthusiasm host, Larry David). The movie shows the Three Stooges enjoying a childhood showcasing what they'll be like when adults. 25 years passes and the orphanage can't pay its bills and its up to the Three Stooges to raise enough money in time to save the orphanage. The Stooges go on a wild adventure where they are brought into a plot to kill a lady's rich husband so she can get the money since she bribes them that she'll help give the orphanage support... its a crazy plot with a lot of wraparounds. Among them is Moe getting a part on the reality TV series that made Snooki famous, Jersey Shore. Whew !
Its brilliantly done and doesn't take itself too seriously. The Stooges impersonations done by Will Sasso (Curly), Sean Hayes (Larry), and Chris Diamantopoulos (Moe). are loving acted out in a perfect tribute fashion showing you that they are not trying to replace the original Stooges. The movie does contain humor and instances that stray away from the humor and mood in the Stooges films, but its snuck in in such a way that doesn't detract or take you away from the original humor of the Stooges acted out in the film. The Farrelly Brothers know that they can't take over what the original Stooges had already created, but they know they can give audiences and fans a zany tribute-ish film that will leave you smiling and at times laughing. The only problem is that I have trouble figuring out what audience this movie appeals to or even if the Three Stooges humor fits into the comedy we're so used to in the films of the early 21st century. Most teens are into Hangover-type comedies, while 10 year olds could get into this but in case they do get into it too much, their is an actual somewhat goofy discretion at the end of the film telling kids that everything you see is fake and shouldn't be tried on anybody.... are you serious ??? Moe Howard himself addressed such issues back in interviews from the late 60s and early 70s. If you're kid is a nut then he's a nut regardless of whether he saw it in a movie or not.... that really kind of punched me in the stomach of what kind of world we live in today where we have to censor our kids from the stupidest crap. Anyways its good film and you should go into it with right mood.
Son of the Pink Panther (1993)
Made of 100% pure recycled elements !
In 1980, comedic actor Peter Sellers who had previously played Inspector Clouseau five times in the Pink Panther series died. One of the greatest actors of all time left sooner than expected and wanted thus definitely ending the Pink Panther films..... right ?. Nope, not for Pink Panther creator and director, Blake Edwards who was about to release and begin production what would become Trail of the Pink Panther. Edwards utilized deleted scene footage of Sellers as Clouseau previously shot for The Pink Panther Strikes Again (1976). The film was released kind of as a tribute to Peter Sellers, however Blake Edwards took it one step further by adding a cliff hanger ending saying that Clouseau on way to solve a case was lost at sea, further leaving the possibility of another sequel (this process is kind of reminiscent of how when Bruce Lee died they continued to make Bruce Lee films by utilizing footage from his previous films, as well as deleted scenes). Shot concurrently with "Trail", Curse of the Pink Panther followed about a bumbling Clouseau-esque American detective trying to track down Clouseau. And believe it or not you actually see Inspector Clouseau played by Roger Moore (who was still involved in playing James Bond). under the excuse that Clouseau wanted to hide from the world so he got plastic surgery. You'd think it would end ??? Nope. 10 years later ...... Son of the Pink Panther, this can't be good, and you know what it isn't !
Son of the Pink Panther has Jacques Gambrelli playing the idiot son of the late Inspector Clouseau. His mother Maria Gambrelli (previously a character in A Shot in The Dark. And what's more confusing is that they get Claudia Cardinale who previously played the Princess in the very first Pink Panther, to play his mom) wants to keep the secret of his father being a famous inspector throughout France. Eventually Jacques finds out and concurrently has to save a Princess who has been captured by terrorists.
The gags and the plot could not have been more repetitive and more boring. While watching this maybe I would expect one or two running gags from the previous films to be in here, but no. Every single thing that's supposed to make you laugh is something recycled from the previous films. If you're familiar with these films you'll be able to sit there and know what gag the characters are leading up to. Even the plot is basically hack work of the very first entry in this series and Clouseau's son doesn't even get involved in the actual plot till 20 minutes near the end. Before that its just him bumbling around repeating jokes from the previous films. I have to say while watching this I enjoyed seeing Herbert Lom and Bert Kwouk reprise their roles as Inspector Dreyfus and Kato, than Roberto Begnini's Clouseau impersonation becoming more and more like Steve Martin's (except Martin's is slightly better and his Pink Panther films are more original and fresh). I really liked Curse of the Pink Panther way better than this ! That's a hundred times more original, new, and more entertaining than this washed up last attempt at reviving the already DEAD series.
Fright Night Part 2 (1988)
What ? There's a sequel ???
After the sort of cliffhanger ending in the first Fright Night, three years later gives us Fright Night 2. I had no idea this even existed until I was stumbling around on the internet looking at stuff from the first film. Instead of Tom Holland directing, its Tommy Lee Wallace, the same guy who directed the loathed Halloween 3. And whenever the director from the first film isn't involved with something that he created himself, you know it can't be that good...?
Roddy McDowall reprises his role again as the infamous Peter Vincent, as well as William Ragsdale as Charley Brewster. Charley is now grown up and in college. He has separated himself from Peter Vincent after all the trouble they went through and receiving psychiatric treatment trying to make himself believe that all the vampires were just some illusion he imagined in his mind. When Charley finally visits Peter again (who has his TV show back)he notices something strange about Peter's new next door neighbors. They pull up in a stretch limo with movers carrying in big long crates.... hmmm. Charley, trying to deny his senses, eventually has to face them and reunite with Peter to once again battle vampires and werewolves in the final 'real' Fright Night movie.
Roddy McDowall's performance is once again great as Peter Vincent. Although in this one he's not really involved a lot throughout the film unlike the first one. Which is weird considering he's first billed and in the first one he's like fifth billed and he's in it a whole lot more. Being compared with first one, this film isn't all that bad, even though the first one is CLEARLY the best. Instead of keeping the light-hearted spirit of part 1, Part 2 keeps more of a serious and darker tone than the first. One thing I've noticed about these films is that soundtracks to them both suck. They sound like something that belongs in a porn film. They should've gotten someone like John Carpenter or Jerry Goldsmith to do the music, instead of composers who make only incidental type scores. There's only one thing that has me confused. Towards the end of the movie Charley is captured by the main vampire and is bitten on the neck ? I can't tell. During the whole end scene he keeps switching back from human to vampire, from human to vampire, and so forth. The showdown in the end is no where near as memorable as the first film, but is cool in its own way. Peter and Charley are a great duo and there should've been more stuff done with them, like maybe a TV series. Its probably would've been a whole lot better than the crap stain remake that's coming out. The new one seems like too much of a comedy and has a weird bright and punchy atmosphere to it. Nothing really like the original ones. And no one on earth can replace Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent, no one !
Fright Night (1985)
Fun & Entertaining !!!
By the mid 80s the classic horror genre had died down and film studios were interested in making slasher films that appealed mainly to the teenage audience. Filled with plenty of jumps, most of the slasher films as a whole are pretty crappy and aren't really scary at all. I haven't really seen any perfected horror film that isn't past the year 1985, or at least one that isn't a remake or revolve around teenagers getting drunk, having sex, then getting killed. Let's not also forget the cliché gags, such as where it seem as if the character is being watched by some slasher villain, but then, OH!, what a relief it was only his best friend trying to scare him.
Fright Night is a genius story and revolves around a young teenager named, Charlie. Charlie is an avid fan of all the Universal and Hammer horror films. He watches these films on a late night TV show called Fright Night, which is hosted by the notorious vampire killer himself, actor Peter Vincent (an amazing performance by Roddy McDowall). One night while looking out his bedroom window he notices his new next door neighbors moving in.... the creepy thing is, is that the movers are carrying in a coffin ! Convinced that his next door neighbors are vampires and that they are in some way related to current killings going on in town, he desperately seeks the help of the police and his friends to try and convince them that his neighbors are in fact real vampires. He eventually has no one else to turn to except Peter Vincent !
The story , written by director Tom Holland, is great (not surprised its getting the remake treatment like every movie ever made) however I can't help but feel that the movie falls weak at certain points. The lighting in the movie is real drab and dull and doesn't really help much at really setting the right mood (at least for the most parts). The directing could've been a bit better, but nevertheless the actors were pretty good, Roddy McDowall's performance sticks out like a sore thumb almost. The only real complaint is how drown out the movie can get. For instance when one of the vampires gets killed or when the main vampire is seducing Charlie's girlfriend it gets drawn out longer than it really needs to be. Aside from these small problems it sure is a fun and entertaining horror film with a light-hearted spirit that doesn't leave the viewer disappointed. The special effects are great as well !
Remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes ?
Planet of The Apes (originally a french novel by Pierre Boulle) was unleashed onto movie theater screens in 1968 and was a milestone in science fiction films for its rich and genuine story, brilliant social commentary, and groundbreaking special effects. The successful film launched four other sequels ('70-'73), a short lived TV series (1974), and a Saturday morning cartoon series (1975), as well as a remake of the original (2001). Now, 38 years later (!) a new sequel ?/prequel ? is made.
Rise of the Planet of The Apes is the first sequel ?/prequel ? in the saga (?) to use CGI apes (designed by Peter Jackson's WETA workshop. The very same who created King Kong in CGI for the 2005 remake) instead of the previous tradition of real actors in make-up. Set in present day California, scientists are experimenting with genetic engineering in apes that incidentally increases their intelligence to that of humans. Although, they struggle through many test apes, experimenting gets halted after a mother ape goes on rampage throughout the institute in order to protect her baby from the humans. When research is halted, the baby (later named Caesear) is secretly taken into the hands of a young scientist where takes it home to raise and finds that its smarter than he thinks.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes is probably one of the best new movies I've seen in the theater and is probably movie of the year. It is a fast-paced ,interesting, alive story that captivates the viewer in making him really feel the inhuman torture of apes, as well as how passionate Caesear really becomes about setting all the apes free from the clutches of authority. This is a very successful work of art as it integrates the viewer perfectly into the experience of the film. An important feat many new works of art ever capture. This movie was really a relief considered all the crap that's been being released into theaters. This is my critique as a stand alone movie, however in the scope of the 'Apes' saga I wish I could say the same. Below I will explain how this movie doesn't really fit in with Planet of the Apes series.
At the end of Beneath The Planet of the Apes (1970), earth is destroyed in a battle between humans, underground mutants, and apes making many viewers believe the Planet of the Apes saga is over. But with the magic of time travel, the 'Apes' films returned in 1971 with Escape From the Planet of the Apes. Prior to doomsday, chimpanzees Corneilius, Zira, and Milo escape in the astronauts spaceship from the first 'Apes' film to earth in the year 1972. While there the government realizes how deadly talking human apes can be especially when the mother is pregnant. The president realizing this is an event that could jeopardize human history orders the apes' baby to be killed. Corneilius and Zira soon flee to try and find hiding from the blood-thirsty government only to be cruelly gunned down in the end (pretty intense for a G-rated film !) leaving their baby, Milo (the other ape Milo was killed by a zoo gorilla in the beginning) to be raised in a circus by a circus master with a real passion for animals, Armando. Now, two decades past, and Conquest of the Planet of the Apes opens up in the year 1991. Non-talking Apes have become the servants to humans after a mysterious plague wiped out cats and dogs in the year 1982. Milo, still the only ape capable of speech, is now an adult. Later, Armando commits suicide after the government is pursuing him about his ownership of a supposed talking ape, Milo becomes a servant to the government , where he picks the name Caesear (!). After witnessing ape cruelty one after the other, Caesear soon (with help of other apes) revolts and overthrows the government and citizens so the apes can be liberated. After a powerful victory speech by Caesear the apes let off an atomic bomb that wipes out the majority of remaining humans (not a virus !). Hopefully you are smart enough to realize that the new sequel ? / prequel ? / whatever ! doesn't fir in anywhere and is just another sad Hollywood attempt at trying to wipe out other original films since everyone is loosing ideas.
Homages featured in the film: One of the characters is named Dodge Landon. Basically the two first names of the other two astronauts from the first film.
One of the characters is seen watching a Charlton Heston film on TV.
Dodge Landon shouts at Caesear, "Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape !" (no explanation needed)
One of the apes in the zoo is named Corneilia.
The apes attack the police using the same method by dropping down from above, like in Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.