Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Good adaptation and update of the original Stephen King story!
First, I will say, anyone who's seen the 1976 version of "Carrie", if you are a huge fan of that original one or just know it very well, you should sit that film aside completely and just watch this one as if the old Carrie never was made, then you will enjoy it more.
I actually liked this adaption a little more than the first and older movie so well known. This movie being so much more modern, was able to focus more on Carrie's telekinetic power much more, and of course utilizing modern side effects and techniques when filming, and so I found this was one huge plus of this film. And the director and crew do it just to the right degree, through most of the movie.
But what is really excellent about this newer version is they stick very close to the story; it never tries to outdo the '76 movie in any way, ever, that I could find. It starts and remains modest but pushes along to its climactic ending in a fun yet accurate way. And it is that very climax that Carrie is know most for.
The actors were all good in their parts, particularly the lead characters. Some of the teeny high school scenes are a little too overdone but that happens very little so it doesn't hinder this movie too much in the process. Julianne Moore plays a good part as Carrie's mother, and I imagine for Julianne, it gave her a change of pace from her previous roles in other films. And the choreography was good, and enough attention to detail was given so the prom scene, and a few others beforehand in the movie work and so it is all this that makes it a small gem among 2013 horror films.
Finally, its strongest point and what most who know the story will anticipate, is the climactic ending, as I did. I watched closely at some significant events and still despite the newer actors and ability to achieve effects not previously available in 1976, this movie uses the effects in just enough amount to keep the viewer in suspense and wonder, especially in the end parts. Basically, it does due justice to the novel by Stephen King, only from a modernized point of view.
And so given all that, this would rank higher in the ranks among other remakes or refresher films in recent history I think. Give it a look if you were wondering about any of these points I have made, and if you weren't otherwise. Or just go in with normal expectations and you'll like this movie.
Dinner for Schmucks (2010)
Steve Carell is great in all his movies, but he owned this film!
Steve Carell is one of my favorite actors, more and more each movie I've seen him in (not in chronological order). Then in looking for another comedy, I saw this one. Then I looked on IMDb and it had a 5.7 rating, slightly low for a film with Carell in it, who by the way is estimated to get $20 million a film these days. Now, I will say all the other characters are fantastic in their roles, but I do not think there was any scene that Carell's character (Barry) was in where he spoke or acted that I could not help but laugh at or just plain crack-up. And that to me is why he is worth what he is paid. Not only is he worth his salary in acting and comedy, but he owned this role like no one else could! And that is brilliant talent. Most likely, if you do watch this film, when it is over you would agree its him that takes this film up two notches from the 5.7 to an 8 stars out of 10.
In concluding, the plot and parts of some of the supporting actors' scripts and roles might seem a little quirky or surreal in just reading the synopsis, but actually I found all of those areas of this film entertaining and amusing as well, if you pay attention to subtlety of statements or jokes throughout, but all of this is just the cake. And it is Carell whom, in my opinion, is the icing on that cake!
Evil Dead (2013)
A hell of a horror movie!!!
Setting aside any comparisons of this film versus Sam Raimi's originals, I proceed with my review.
This is a kick ass horror movie, a fresh feast in such a watered-down genre. Straight to the point, here is why it's so great. The premise of the characters being at a cabin in the woods is believable, and original despite that setting alone being cliché on its own. All of the characters make excellent performances at all times throughout the film. Gore? Plenty of it-but very well done and refreshing all the same for each scenario its in. In fact, it is done so well and keeps pace with the speed of the film and story, etc. that I laughed in amazement of its brilliancy. Scary? Perhaps, at some points, for some people. Whoever wants to be scared will probably. Others might expect things that happen as they do if you know the horror genre well enough. And even up until the very end, this movie never gives up, never falls flat. All I can say its an enjoyable, well-done film. Taking all this into account, I suggest for a REAL new and refreshing take for a horror movie amongst others coming out these days, it's a must see. I would even be in favor of a sequel, but ONLY if the director or writers can top or at minimum match the level of this film throughout. Have fun and go see it!
Perhaps a fresh breath for the horror genre.
I completely stumbled upon this movie by accident in roaming from here and there on IMDb. Upon reading the synopsis, it sounded intriguing, and the same for the trailer. So indeed I downloaded it and watched it. I can say that while it was never as scary nor as gory as it is promoted to be, this film has a new type of screenplay, blending five short films into one, while each of them keeping unique and creative. While watching it, it does help to keep in mind that is being an Indie film, and probably filmed with a low budget, the cast and crew did a hell of a job in spite of adversity. I found the special effects to be the most entertaining thing about the film. I mean whenever they appear, they are believable. And that is why I give this 6 out of 10 instead of 5 of 10 on the ratings here. After watching it, I can recommend to any readers to watch the film "The Poughkeepsie Tapes" which is similar in some ways to this film, but in my opinion, however the fx were created, kudos to them and it helps this movie hold its head high throughout, and at just the right moments when it seems its about to trip over on itself.
A gem of a movie! All guts, no glamor, and achieves glory!
After having just seen Tom Hardy's outstanding performance as "Bane" from The Dark Knight Rises, I was intrigued about what else he has done and kinds of other characters he has portrayed. To my surprise, I found that he was in Inception, another great film but I had overlooked him when I viewed that film. Then, I found "Lawless". And just as he did in The Dark Knight Rises, Tom Hardy comes off with another brilliant performance as Forrest Bondurant, one of three brothers, with the other two being Howard and Jack Bondurant, played by Jason Clark and Shia LaBeouf respectively, all of which are bootleggers during the 1930's Prohibition Period in rural Virginia, USA.
I found this to be Shia LaBeouf's best performance to date, personally, as it shows his true talent for acting, such a talent likely lost in the Transformers' movies in place of the CGI Autobots and Decepticons. His character starts off the movie showing his place in the role of things among the three brothers and that he doesn't have what it takes as a kid and he gets into trouble as an adult with the law as well. Still, you are able throughout to see what he experiences and his transformation (no pun intended) into a real man who ultimately takes initiative to save his family and friends and leading the charge to preserve their normal way of life.
Guy Pearce plays his best role as the new yet ruthless, city-slicking, backstabbing Commonwealth Attorney who takes the law of Franklin County, Virginia into his own hands and then some, as he takes his job personally to stop the likes of the three brothers' bootlegging business, not so much because its illegal but simply out of spite.
And finally Gary Oldman, yet again, shines brilliantly is his smaller yet important role in the film as a big timer in the county as controlling who sells and who doesn't
Finally, I must say that at first, the setting and surroundings of the film, don't seem like much to talk about but that is only the beginning and least of what this films aims to do. It aims to capture both the spirit of its time in American history whilst it shows that even "criminal bootleggers" can be the true good guys with good hearts in the face of big city government stepping in with its corrupted ways of justice.
In the end, I say this is a must-see film. It certainly doesn't have all of the attention, hype and flair that other big time films of 2012 have seen, but if its a star in the night sky amongst all the others, you can it shines just as bright!
The Avengers (2012)
Over-hyped through and through
I will not make this review very long, but you can add it to anyone else's that gave this a 3 out of 10. First of all, I will say that this film is perhaps the first one (for me ever) that has warranted obtaining it by pirating it from the internet. I could not sleep had I spent $10 at the theater on it, and for that matter $3.00 for a one-evening rental of it on DVD.
As I downloaded it, I was really excited, mostly just basing it off the reviews and records it set on its opening weekend and through the summer of 2012 even. And wow, was I so wrong in doing that. Keep in mind, I know that it holds true to form to comic books and their characters depicted in the movie, but I have seen Iron Man, Captain America and the last two Incredible Hulk remakes, and somehow this grouping of all the Marvel characters, diminishes the value of all the characters' individual films they lead in so much its embarrassing. I really liked Iron Man but his one- or two-liners in this film are not funny, but very cheesy and predictable. The costumes on some of the characters are laughably ridiculous, namely Loki his "ram-looking horns" or whatever, Hawkeye and his blue contacts and then CGI diminishes all of the others' looks.
And finally it speaks enough for itself when this is just one of a very few films I have ever watched where I stopped ( or paused) it every 10 or 20 minutes to go do something else, come back a couple hours later, continue watching,only to repeat the same thing again and again. It took about a day for me to finish it! I mean that just says something of how dull and dopey this film is at times.
All the fan-boys who may argue out there, don't please because I obviously realize you are a fan-boy. Anyone else looking for a "truly good, Oscar-winning, or perhaps classic and one-for-the-history-books" type of film, look elsewhere.