2023.
List activity
159 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
37 titles
- DirectorPeter SollettStarsJaeden MartellAdrian GreensmithIsis HainsworthTwo friends try to form a heavy metal band with a cellist for a Battle of the Bands."I am talking to a girl. I'm not even afraid of her. Beer is amazing."
Standard teen drama/comedy, feel-good flick, about high school friends who form a metal band and enter the Battle of the Bands competition. Friendship, first love, boyish fantasies, and adolescent outbursts, a 'coming-of-age' story, typical of a Netflix production. Nothing new and original, nothing spectacular, but quite cute and watchable. An hour and a half just flew by.
The main asset of the film is a good cross-section of metal classics, nicely blended with the current events in the film. When "Whiplash" (Metallica) started, I got goosebumps. And there are also Judas Priest, Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, Mastodon, Motorhead, Pantera, as well as cameo appearances by Scott Ian (Anthrax), Tom Morrello (RATM), Kirk Hammett (Metallica) and Rob Halford (Judas Priest) and the culmination of the story with "Machinery of Torment," which Tom Morello wrote for the film.
7/10 - DirectorNicholas StollerStarsSeth RogenRose ByrneZac EfronAfter they are forced to live next to a fraternity house, a couple with a newborn baby do whatever they can to take them down."Do you think maybe we've gone too far?"
Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne are a married couple with a baby who have invested all their savings in a new house in a quiet suburb. And then a fraternity from the local college moves into the house right next to theirs. The party without end starts and the noise is unbearable, so the couple decides to try to make friends with the new neighbors and find a compromise solution. But when a peaceful solution fails, they start a war to drive the fraternity out of the neighborhood.
The idea is not particularly original, but it gives a lot of room for hilarious comedy. Unfortunately, the script is mediocre at best, and the dialogues did not see humor even in passing, if we do not count the vulgar jokes which most of us outgrow in our early teens. Of all the attempts at humor in this film, only a handful of slapstick works, especially the part with the airbags. The barely mediocre script, decent but unimpressive acting, and a mountain of clichés are watchable and somewhat entertaining, but basically a waste of time.
5/10 - DirectorNicholas StollerStarsSeth RogenRose ByrneZac EfronWhen their new next-door neighbors turn out to be a sorority even more debaucherous than the fraternity that lived there before, Mac and Kelly team with their former enemy, Teddy, to bring the girls down."I've been playing for the wrong team!"
A few years after the events of the first film, Seth and Rose decide to sell the house, but it is very difficult to find a buyer when a sorority of crazy teenage girls, led by the confident Chloe Grace Moretz, has moved into the neighborhood. Getting rid of them seems impossible at first, but then the former president of the fraternity from the first part comes to the rescue. Why? Well, because there is nothing better to do.
On IMDb reviews, the film was widely spit on as an unwatchable disaster. I can understand such a point of view, but only from those who have the same opinion about the 2014 film. Because this is basically the same movie, only spiced up with a faster pace, crazier action, even more offensive and vulgar humor, and a kind of feminist propaganda that is not aggressive toward the male gender. This time the movie held my undivided attention and I actually laughed out loud more than once.
The ending, in my opinion, jumped off the rails of comedy and went into unnecessary melodrama, but nothing terrible. It's actually somewhat endearing. From me, within the genre, of course:
7/10 - DirectorKenneth BranaghStarsKenneth BranaghDerek JacobiSimon ShepherdIn the midst of the Hundred Years War, the young King Henry V of England embarks on the conquest of France in 1415."We few, we happy few, we band of brothers."
Almost half a century after Olivier's adaptation of Shakespeare's "Henry V", where Olivier took on the triple role of screenwriter, director, and lead actor, Kenneth Branagh repeats the feat and, in his directorial debut, also writes and stars.
I'm not sure if Branagh's "Henry V" is a remake of Olivier's or a new adaptation of Shakespeare's play, but I'd bet on the former, because the films are so similar that I had déjà vu the whole time I was watching it.
However, in Branagh's film, the cast is more famous, the acting is more impressive, and the overall production is at a much higher level (by which I don't want to belittle Olivier's production, which was superb for its time). Also, while Olivier's film had a certain dose of humor, Branagh's version is more serious and dramatic.
Although these two films are very different, if nothing else, due to the fact that they are separated by half a century, my subjective impression is essentially as if I watched the same film twice, visually excellently shot, but linguistically terribly tiring and mostly quite boring. Therefore, the rating remains the same.
7/10 - DirectorGerard BarrettStarsChloë Grace MoretzThomas MannRichard ArmitageA young, capable professional cannot explain her newly erratic behavior."Have you ever been trapped? Lost in your own body, lost in your own mind, lost in time? So desperate to escape, to just... get out."
A young up-and-coming journalist suddenly starts behaving strangely and feeling even more strange. He shows signs of bipolar personality disorder, even schizophrenia, and then seizures begin. Doctors cannot find any physical causes and suggest a transfer to a psychiatric facility, but the parents are adamant that their child is not mentally ill and eventually find a doctor capable of recognizing the illness and leading their daughter to complete recovery.
The story is based on the autobiography of Susannah Cahalan, played quite impressively by Chloë Grace Moretz. The hour-and-a-half film focuses for the most part on the period from the appearance of the first symptoms to hospitalization, and then on the unsuccessful attempts to diagnose the disease, while the entire period from diagnosis to complete recovery is completely skipped and only a few minutes after the diagnosis we see our heroine returning to a normal life, which, if the internet is not lying, is not the case in the book.
The directing is mediocre, and the script, in my opinion, catastrophically unbalanced and, after an excellently built atmosphere, unnecessarily rushed into a clichéd happy ending. And there's an irritating voice-over narration instead of the actual plot development. The potential of this drama remains largely untapped, resulting in a shallow, sketchy, and forgettable film that isn't a waste of time just because of Chloë Moretz and Richard Armitage's performances.
5/10 - DirectorWes CravenStarsNeve CampbellCourteney CoxDavid ArquetteA year after the murder of her mother, a teenage girl is terrorized by a masked killer who targets her and her friends by using scary movies as part of a deadly game."What's your favorite scary movie?" - Certainly not this one!
The cult "Halloween" from 1978 started the avalanche of slasher films, which ruled the horror genre during the eighties, but in the nineties, the genre died out. And then Wes Craven made "Scream" in 1996, whose popularity spawned several sequels and brought slasher movies back to life. "I Know What You Did Last Summer" and many others soon followed.
"Scream", like many before it, deals with the mass killing of teenagers, and it does it in an interesting way, but without particular tension and in a somewhat humorous atmosphere. As it contains a large number of witty remarks, a mountain of clichés and references to the cult slashers of the previous decade, I found it difficult to see it as a horror film, but experienced it more as an homage and parody of slasher classics.
"No, please don't kill me, Mr. Ghostface, I wanna be in the sequel!"
The main assets of this film are the opening and closing scenes and the female part of the cast, but not in the acting sense. Everything in between tries to be both horror and comedy at the same time and fails on both fronts. It is neither scary nor suspenseful enough for horror (except for the opening scene with Drew Barrymore), because its atmosphere is more like a "Scary Movie" (which, by the way, was its original title) than a slasher, nor funny enough for a good comedy/parody. With due (dis)respect to its cult status and influence on the genre, it left such a tepid and forgettable impression on me that I only realized towards the end that I had already seen it, probably somewhere around the time it came out. I recognized only the end, because it is the only part of the film impressive enough (insanely silly) to remain in my faint memory even after twenty-five years.
It will remain a mystery to me how and why this made two hundred million dollars at the box office and what the hell happened to the man who made "A Nightmare on Elm Street". I watched it last night with a twelve-year-old kid, who couldn't fall asleep until four in the morning afterwards, while I barely managed to stay awake until the end of the movie. However, if the target group of "Scream" are pre-pubescent children who have never seen a horror film before, then it might be good and me not competent to judge...
5/10 - DirectorLouis C.K.StarsLouis C.K.Chloë Grace MoretzRose ByrneWhen a successful television writer's daughter becomes the interest of an aging filmmaker with an appalling past, he becomes worried about how to handle the situation."Everybody's a pervert."
People unable to separate the work of art from the private life of the author boycott this film only to their own detriment. Maybe "I Love You, Daddy" is not a masterpiece of the seventh art, but it is certainly a film worth watching, an intelligent and brave story that makes you think and refuses to bow to puritanism and the modern version of the witch hunt.
A successful television scriptwriter (Louis C. K.) is a spineless divorced man who has turned his daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz) into a spoiled manipulator. But when his seventeen-year-old princess begins to fall for his idol, a seventy-year-old filmmaker with a reputation as a pedophile (John Malkovich), he realizes he has to tighten the reins.
Parenthood, growing up (both daughter and father), diverse male-female relationships and bridging generational gaps, drawing the line between conservative prejudices and common sense, an obvious thematic homage to Woody Allen (who was offered the role, which luckily was eventually played by Malkovich), and a stylistic and acting homage to the golden age of Hollywood, all of this is very nicely packed into an atmospheric and somewhat philosophical film, which many criticized for not having a clear point and message. But I think that this is precisely where its strength lies, because life itself does not have a clear point and message, and this film portrays it very honestly and without restraint.
Old-fashioned and modern at the same time, this is a movie you'll love if you loved Woody Allen, or maybe the TV series "Californication," with which it also shares actress Pamela Adlon. I watched the movie primarily because of Chloe and, although I have no major complaints about her performance, I was much more impressed by John Malkovich and Rose Byrne, and Louis himself in roles of screenwriter, director, and lead actor. Warm recommendation.
7/10 - DirectorWilliam DieterleStarsCharles LaughtonMaureen O'HaraCedric HardwickeIn 15th-century France, a gypsy girl is framed for murder by the infatuated Chief Justice, and only the deformed bellringer of Notre Dame Cathedral can save her."Why was I not made of stone, like thee?"
To admirers of Hugo's legendary novel, the black-and-white spectacle from 1939 may seem like desecration. Due to the law that was in force at the time, according to which a church dignitary could not be portrayed as a villain, the story had to be changed to a considerable extent, and when we add to that the inevitable Hollywoodization, due to which the story, especially the ending, was softened and romanticized, the disappointment of the book lovers is expected and understandable.
But if we look at the film as a separate work of art, without comparing it to the source material, the impressions will improve a lot. There are many reasons why "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" has stood the test of time and become a classic of the seventh art.
Let's start with the, for that time, astronomical production of almost two million dollars. This enabled the construction of a very expensive and believable set of Paris from the end of the 15th century, as well as the engagement of the big names of the time.
The cinematography (Joseph H. August) and the directing (William Dieterle) are superb and almost every frame is an artistic photograph in itself, and many are real little masterpieces. The carefully built atmosphere and excellent music by Alfred Newman will nail you to the scenes filmed more than 80 years ago.
The cast is impeccable. This is one of the few movies where no performance spoiled my overall impression. I should mention actors that especially stand out: Cedric Hardwicke, in the role of the supreme judge whose inner turmoil drives him to madness and crime, Maureen O'Hara, in the role of the beautiful Esmeralda, and of course Charles Laughton, in the role of Quasimodo. Even though the make-up and costume make him unrecognizable and he has very few verbal moments, Charles conveys all the tragedy and pain of a rejected and lonely being who, despite everyone considering him a monster, manages to retain his humanity, and achieves probably the best performance of his career.
"The Hunchback of Notre Dame" tells a story of love and sacrifice, of our attitude towards diversity, of fascination with extremes, of the internal conflict between moral norms and vows and human drives, while giving us a political and social view of 15th Century France. Although tamer than a novel and seemingly a romantic drama, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" is also a thriller, so brutal that, at the time, it flirted with the horror genre. The New York Times condemned the showing of this film to children and pointed out that in comparison "Frankenstein" looks like a comedy.
Although naive at times, the film hypnotized me enough to believe even in unbelievable scenes, and the combination of superb acting and production, strong emotions and adrenaline injections, brutality and romance, makes it in every way an impressive and unforgettable experience.
8,5/10 - DirectorSacha GervasiStarsAnsel ElgortChloë Grace MoretzDavid StrathairnAfter his friend is murdered, a Washington, D.C. teenager undertakes his own investigation of the crime.Wasted potential
It's the last year of high school. Two friends are preparing for college and, along the way, they decide to do "that thing" so they don't go to college virgins. This, of course, turns into a romance, which is marred by the murder of their school friend. While she dissuades him from risking his life, he distrusts the police and is determined to solve the murder himself.
Ideas for the story and the final twist have the potential for a quality teen drama or thriller, but that potential remains completely untapped. In every aspect, essential and technical, this movie leaves an impression of, maybe not exactly an amateur film, but let's say a short film of the kind made by film students. I think that at least half of the scenes can be removed without affecting the understanding and experience of the film. They made a half-hour movie of mediocre quality, then forced it to more than an hour, and even with long closing credits, they didn't manage to squeeze in the 90 or so minutes usual for a feature film.
The main role is played by Ansel Elgort, so bland and unimpressive that almost until the end I didn't realize that this is the same man who stars in "Baby Driver". What keeps this movie from being a complete failure are Chloë Grace Moretz (although the script didn't give her much space to shine), David Strathairn in the small role of Ansel's father, and my imagination that can't ignore the potential of this poorly executed final twist.
4/10 - DirectorPenelope SpheerisStarsJoe PerrySteven TylerGene SimmonsDocumentary showcase, what life was like for the music artists living during the Los Angeles Heavy Metal scene in the mid and late 1980s."I think heavy metal is the true rock-n-roll of the 80s and rock-n-roll was basically music made by people who were thinking with their crotches."
Penelope Spheeris, the director best known for the famous comedy "Wayne's World", made this film mostly for money, while her real passion is documentaries and music videos. She is the founder of the first LA production company for music videos, she signed several Megadeth videos, and probably her most important legacy is the documentary trilogy "The Decline of Western Civilization."
The first film, from 1981, deals with the punk scene of the late seventies, the third, from 1998, deals with the lifestyle of homeless teenagers, and the second, which is discussed here, shows the LA metal scene of the eighties, from the musicians' point of view.
There is not much music itself in this film and it relies mostly on interviews with promising bands of the time, as well as with already famous musicians, such as Aerosmith, Kiss, Alice Cooper, Motörhead, and Ozzy Osbourne. Topics range from motivations for playing music, attitudes towards money, success, sex, to the darker aspects of the rock scene, such as drugs, alcohol, and depression.
As a big fan of eighties music, especially glam and thrash metal of this period, this film was a real treat for me, even though I generally don't like documentaries. But it seems to me that "The Decline of Western Civilization Part II: The Metal Years" is not a real documentary. I think that the interviews are not spontaneous, but carefully staged to achieve the desired effect. Also, the choice of bands shown in the film is quite suspicious. As if the author was trying to portray the whole thing in a negative light, the film alternates between transfers of shame and those stereotypes of rock life that cause prejudice in people who are not familiar with this world.
I recommend it as entertainment, but as a source of information, it should be taken with caution.
7/10 - DirectorDesiree AkhavanStarsChloë Grace MoretzSteven HauckQuinn ShephardIn 1993, a teenage girl is forced into a gay conversion therapy center by her conservative guardians.How is programming people to hate themselves not emotional abuse?
A film about a group of teenagers undergoing gay conversion therapy in a religious psychiatric institution. Whether you have an understanding for homosexuality or not, it should be clear to you that there can be no benefit from such institutions, while the damage is the indelible emotional and psychological trauma of young people subjected to this crazy idea.
Unfortunately, the huge dramatic potential of this theme remained unused. Although the cast is really good, the script didn't give them much material to express themselves. Except for the main character, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, the characters are two-dimensional, without any background story or serious characterization. We don't know anything about them, but we don't care either, because the authors didn't bother to arouse any interest or sympathy for them.
Uninteresting characters and a story without any energy and emotion make "The Miseducation of Cameron Post" one of those movies that you forget as soon as the closing credits pass.
5/10 - DirectorNorman JewisonStarsSidney PoitierRod SteigerWarren OatesA black Philadelphia police detective is mistakenly suspected of a local murder while passing through a racially hostile Mississippi town, and after being cleared is reluctantly asked by the police chief to investigate the case.Significant, but overrated
In some backwaters of Mississippi, a prominent businessman was murdered. The police arrest the first unknown black man they come across, but it turns out that he is a homicide detective from Philadelphia, who happened to be there in passing. As the local police have no idea what to do next, he stays to solve the murder.
The film is set up as a murder mystery thriller, but the murder investigation is in fact just a stage set for the display of southern racism and the development of the relationship between the black detective and the local redneck sheriff, a relationship that goes from undisguised bigotry and revulsion, through pride and spite, to mutual understanding and respect. This relationship is portrayed in an Oscar-worthy way by Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, but the focus on this part of the story made them neglect the murder mystery aspect, which is mediocre at best, with a disappointing ending.
In the sixties, when African-Americans got their rights, when interracial marriages were legalized, and when racial riots raged in America, especially after the assassination of Martin Luther King, "In the Heat of the Night" represented a turning point and a landmark in American cinema. For the first time in film, a black man punched a white man and went unpunished, as well as showed intellectual superiority. The controversy was so great that they seriously considered not distributing the film in the South at all. It turned out that the concerns were exaggerated and the film achieved enviable popularity.
It won five Oscars out of seven nominations. Rod Steiger deservedly took the Oscar, but I don't see how it's his role the leading one, and not Sidney Poitier's, who wasn't even nominated. As for the Oscars for editing and sound, I am not competent to judge there, but the music by Quincy Jones is really good, especially the title song performed by Ray Charles.
Now, for the above-mentioned reasons, the Oscar for the screenplay is quite debatable, while the Oscar for the best film is totally unrealistic and I attribute it to the racial-political situation of the sixties. Because if we look at it outside of that context, in what universe is "In the Heat of the Night" a better movie than "Bonnie and Clyde" or "The Graduate"...
7/10 - CreatorAlfred GoughMiles MillarStarsJenna OrtegaHunter DoohanEmma MyersFollows Wednesday Addams' years as a student, when she attempts to master her emerging psychic ability, thwart a killing spree, and solve the mystery that embroiled her parents."They're creepy and they're kooky, mysterious and spooky, they're all together ooky, the Addams family"
"The Addams Family" sitcom from the 1960s, set a standard that no subsequent adaptation could even come close to. Two seasons with a total of 64 episodes are one of my fondest childhood memories. Perfect casting, perfect morbid-comic atmosphere, brilliant dialogues and replicas, and seductive Carolyn Jones. An unforgettable experience, partly because it's so good, and partly because I can't forget something that I rewatch every couple of years.
Tim Burton is one of my favorite filmmakers. "Batman" (1989), "Edward Scissorhands" (1990), "Batman Returns" (1992), "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" (2005), "Corpse Bride" (2005), "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (2007), are pretty strong reasons why I had high expectations for this show. Unfortunately, it would have been better if I had approached the "Wednesday" series without any.
If it was supposed to be a comedy - it's not funny, if it was supposed to be a horror - it's not scary, it's not dramatic, it's not tense, it's not particularly imaginative. The Addams Family was originally conceived as "a satirical inversion of the ideal post-war middle-class American nuclear family", eccentric, morbid, and seemingly completely oblivious to how others perceive them. Wednesday is conceived as a girl who is extremely different from the students of a normal school, not an academy for fantasy beings. The other Addamses have no connection with their black and white ancestors, neither in appearance nor in character. The characters don't have the charm of the originals, the series isn't nearly as funny as the old one, and it doesn't have the iconic tune we all had our fingers snapping along to. Long story short, for a fan of the sixties series, and even compared to the films that followed in the nineties, the only thing this series has in common with its predecessors is the title and partly the image of Addamses.
On the other hand, viewed independently of its predecessors, "Wednesday" has its qualities. Impressive photography and use of color, interesting, if very poorly developed characters and, despite, in my opinion, a barely mediocre script, excellent acting by the entire cast. I was particularly won over by Hunter Doohan and Emma Myers.
And by far the strongest asset of this series, and the only reason why I didn't give up on it after one or two episodes, is Jenna Ortega, whose Wednesday completely overshadowed Christina Ricci's. It's not the Wednesday we loved in the sixties and nineties, but this new one might be even better. Jenna made this character her own, and I think I can say with certainty that from now on her performance will be the first thing most people associate with the mention of Wednesday, and even The Addams Family in general.
6,5/10 - DirectorNeil JordanStarsIsabelle HuppertChloë Grace MoretzMaika MonroeA young woman befriends a lonely widow who's harboring a dark and deadly agenda toward her."Greta is one of those thrillers where you see almost every twist coming, but the actors are so into it that you still get sucked in." - Gregory Ellwood
A young waitress (Chloë Grace Moretz) finds a woman's purse forgotten in the subway and decides to return it to its owner. A grateful elderly widow (Isabelle Huppert) invites her in for coffee, which our heroine accepts, not suspecting what lies behind the seemingly harmless facade of the lonely piano teacher.
"Greta" is a psychological thriller that does not bring us anything new and original, and the actions of the characters are often irritatingly illogical and unreasonable, which is one of the characteristics of most horror films, a genre with which director Neil Jordan consciously flirts. Although from the start everything hints that the film is not worth watching, Chloë (this genre suits her best) and Isabelle gave themselves so much to their roles that I simply couldn't give up on it until the end
"Greta" is a film that drowns in mediocrity and clichés in every aspect, but it is pulled out by the impressive acting of Chloë and Isabelle, which is why I have to recommend it and rate it in the upper half of the scale.
7/10 - DirectorRichard StanleyStarsNicolas CageJoely RichardsonMadeleine ArthurA secluded farm is struck by a strange meteorite which has apocalyptic consequences for the family living there and possibly the world.“A messenger from realms whose existence stuns the brain and numbs us with the gulfs that it throws open before our frenzied eyes.”
On IMDb, I came across a superbly written review that almost perfectly coincides with my view of the film, and I am transcribing it in its entirety, because it makes no sense to write the same, and probably worse, in my own words.
"Written and directed by Richard Stanley (his first film in 25 years, after he was infamously fired three days into production on his long-gestating dream project, The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)), Colour Out of Space is a modernised adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's 1927 short story "The Colour Out of Space", and takes a good stab at depicting one of Lovecraft's most oblique entities. Mixing humour and body horror (perhaps weighed a little too much towards humour), the film gives Nicolas Cage another opportunity to go full-Cage, and boy does he lean into it - this is the most ludicrous, histrionic, and borderline farcical performance he's given since Vampire's Kiss (1988), and how much latitude you give him may well determine your opinion of the movie.
Just outside the city of Arkham, MA (the fictitious setting of many Lovecraftian stories), Nathan Gardner (Cage), his wife Theresa (Joely Richardson), and their children Benny (Brendan Meyer), Lavinia (Madeleine Arthur), and Jack (Julian Hilliard) have moved into Nathan's deceased father's property, with Nathan embracing rural life by raising alpacas on the property's farm. On an otherwise normal night, the sky fills with pulsating light and a meteorite crashes onto the Gardners' land, and as time passes, the Gardners start to experience ever-more bizarre events - unnaturally localised lightning storms that seem to come from nowhere; huge fuchsia-like plants that seem to grow overnight; a horrific odour that only Nathan can smell; a gigantic purple mantis flying around; radios and the internet cutting out more than normal; the water turning strange colours; the family's dog, Lavinia's horse, and Nathan's alpacas starting to act strangely; even time itself appears to be corrupted. And soon enough, the family members themselves begin to show signs of unnatural change.
After some basic narrative preamble and a contemplative sub-Terrence Malick-style voiceover, the film features one of the most inorganic expositionary scenes I've ever seen, as Nathan and Theresa stand on the porch, and spend a good five minutes telling each other things that they both already know. Thankfully though, the clunkiness of this opening isn't a sign of things to come, and one of the film's most consistent elements is the subtlety with which Stanley depicts the entity, or rather, doesn't depict it. Lovecraft felt that if humanity were ever to encounter real cosmic beings, they could be so unlike anything in our experience as to be impossible to describe, or even process in our minds, and one of his aims with "Colour" was to create an entity that doesn't conform to human understanding - hence the only description is by analogy, and even then, only in relation to colour beyond the visual spectrum. With this in mind, Stanley wisely keeps everything as vague as possible - vibrant, modulating pulses of light that seem to be emanating from somewhere just outside the frame, vaguely-defined spatial distortions, colour manipulations with no obvious source, etc.
Important here is the colour itself, and instead of attempting to create the indescribable colour featured in the story, director of photography Steve Annis chooses to go the route of not settling for any one stable colour - every time we see the effects of the meteorite, the hue appears to be in a state of flux - so although we can say the colours are recognisable, they're never identifiable as any one specific colour, which, is probably the best choice the filmmakers could have made.
As we get into the third act, the film abandons all sense of restraint and goes completely insane, with the body horror which has threatened to break through from the earliest moments finally unleashed, foregrounding the exceptional work of special effects supervisor/creature designer Dan Martin. These scenes are heavily indebted to David Cronenberg, especially his earlier work such as Shivers (1975), Rabid (1977), and The Brood (1979), although the most obvious touchstone is Chris Walas's work on Cronenberg's masterpiece, The Fly (1986). A lot of Martin's creature design also seems inspired by the legendary work of Rob Bottin, and there's a direct visual quote of one of the best moments in John Carpenter's The Thing (1982).
It's also in the last act where Cage is turned loose, signalled by an epic meltdown when he discovers Benny hasn't closed the barn door and the alpacas have gotten out. From there, it's Nicolas Cage unrestrained. There is a problem with this, however. Full-Cage has been seen in films such as Vampire's Kiss, Face/Off (1997), The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009), Mom and Dad (2017), and Mandy (2018), but each performance has felt fairly organic, never becoming self-conscious. In Colour, however, to an even greater extent than in the virtually unwatchable The Wicker Man (2006), Cage crosses into self-parody, with his performance having as much to do with people's preconceived notions of a Nicholas Cage performance as it does with finding the character. There are a couple of scenes here that seem to have little to do with legitimate character beats and more to do with Cage winking at the audience.
Which might be entertaining and all, but which doesn't serve the film especially well. For all its insanity, this is a relatively serious movie, but Cage's performance is so manic, that it affects everything around it. For example, after the aforementioned meltdown ("Don't you know how expensive those alpacas were"), which just about fits with what we know of the character, as Nathan is walking away from Benny and Lavinia, he stops, turns, pauses, shouts "ALPACAS", pauses again, and then walks away. This got a huge laugh at the screening I attended, and it was undoubtedly funny. But does self-reflexive humour by the leading man help tell the story or even create the right tone? No, not in the slightest. In essence, this scene marks the point where the character ceases to be Nathan Gardner and becomes a version of Nicolas Cage.
The other characters all have a kind of internal logic to their crumbling sanity; the meteorite affects each of them differently, with their minds disintegrating in different, but consistent ways. With Nathan, however, Stanley seems unwilling, or unable, to establish the parameters by which his mind is breaking down, seemingly going for laughs rather than something more cogent.
This issue notwithstanding, I enjoyed Colour Out of Space a great deal. Stanley's return to the director's chair is to be admired for its restraint and how faithful it remains to the very tricky Lovecraftian original. The body-horror in the film's last act will appeal to fans of the grotesque, whilst others will take great pleasure from Cage's insanity, as narratively unjustified as it is. The film is ridiculous on many levels, but it's extremely well realised and well-made, and is to be applauded for not trying to attach an explicit meaning to a story that avoids any kind of thematic specificity." - Bertaut
7,5/10 - DirectorNorman TaurogStarsTommy KellyJackie MoranAnn GillisTom Sawyer and his pal Huckleberry Finn have great adventures on the Mississippi River, pretending to be pirates, attending their own funeral and witnessing a murder."Aunt Polly! Aunt Polly!"
Mark Twain's cult classic has been put into motion pictures many times, and according to many, the best is David O. Selznick's 1938 version, directed by Norman Taurog.
All the most memorable scenes from the novel are here, convincingly brought to the screen by lesser-known child actors, supported by veteran May Robson as Aunt Polly. Young Tommy Kelly is physically perfect for the role of Tom Sawyer, and his debut performance is so impressive that if you read the book after the movie, you won't be able to imagine Tom in any other way.
"The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" is a film that has no political, social, or any other subtext, but honestly and from the heart tries to bring us back to our childhood and remind us of what it was like when life was all about children's love and mischief, and in that it really works. This boy's adventure is filled with scenes that will make you giggle, while in some you may even shed a tear, and when the ninety minutes were up, I was nostalgic for the rest of the day.
8/10 - DirectorHong Sung-hoMoo-Hyun JangYoung Sik UhmStarsChloë Grace MoretzSam ClaflinGina GershonPrinces who have been turned into Dwarfs seek the red shoes of a lady in order to break the spell, although it will not be easy. A parody with a twist.Shrek rip-off
Visually, if you don't have high expectations, the animation is quite acceptable, even cute, but it's not all about the picture. The story is based on "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", with touches of many other fairy tales, and the way the authors have twisted things seems promising. Unfortunately, the screenplay is amateurishly written and delivers a promising premise in the form of a total mishmash.
Already in the first couple of minutes, I thought that "Red Shoes and the Seven Dwarfs" was a rip-off of "Shrek", and by the end, it became more and more obvious and irritating. And the last nail in the coffin of this bad rip-off is the disastrous soundtrack, made of nonsensical pop songs, unfitting to the film.
If your kids haven't seen "Shrek", they might like this South Korean creation, but if you want to see the movie too, even the worst sequels of "Shrek" are a better choice than this mess.
5/10 - DirectorStanley KramerStarsSpencer TracyFredric MarchGene KellyBased on a real-life case in 1925; two great lawyers argue the case for, and against, a Tennessee science teacher accused of the crime of teaching Darwin's theory of evolution."He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."
A young biology teacher, in some southern backwater, teaches the students the theory of evolution, in violation of a local law that prohibits teachings that conflict with the Bible. Two famous lawyers take on the roles of prosecutor and defense attorney and we watch the court process, the battle between Darwinism and Creationism, that is, free thought and dogmatism.
Kramer is known for films with a strong socio-political message (The Defiant Ones, On the Beach, Judgment at Nuremberg, Pressure Point, Ship of Fools, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner) and this one does not deviate from that template. It is based on a true event from 1925, but the story has been altered and exaggerated to make a point. That might be fine if it were a satirical comedy, but this courtroom drama is so overblown and caricatured that there is no trace of drama or tension. Combined with overacting and especially some of the music, the result is quite frivolous and at times very irritating.
With all due respect to the acting legends (Spencer Tracy, Fredric March, Gene Kelly) and Stanley Kramer's legacy, I think this 1960 black-and-white classic fell far short of its potential.
7/10 - DirectorJulia DucournauStarsVincent LindonAgathe RousselleGarance MarillierFollowing a series of unexplained crimes, a father is reunited with the son who has been missing for ten years."I don't care who you are. You're my son. You'll always be my son. Whoever you are. Is that clear?"
I know that it is customary to start with a short description, which would give the readers at least a rough idea of what the film is about, but I think that, in this case, it would inevitably be a spoiler. I haven't been able to think of any way to avoid spoilers and still make sense of what I write. In addition, I believe that "Titane" is based on unpredictability and shocking scenes and actions of the characters, and that it is best to approach it without any prior knowledge. Because, in my opinion, apart from that, the film has nothing special to offer.
"Titane" is the second feature film by French screenwriter and director Julia Ducournau. Her debut, "Raw" from 2016, caused controversy and gained enviable popularity. I haven't watched it yet, but I hope it has more substance than this one. It is classified as drama/horror/sci-fi on IMDb. Drama it is, rough, morbid, perverse, and sickening, sci-fi is represented only in the form of one, essentially important, but still only one impossible detail, and I wouldn't say it's horror. It's bizarre, it's sickening for the eyes and the stomach, and a few scenes are really nasty, but neither in form nor in substance is this horror.
I like crazy, shocking, sick, and completely bizarre movies, if these extremes serve some depth, to better convey and highlight the essence of the story. But here there is no strong story to justify them. As with Marvel, where the constant firework of special effects and adrenaline rollercoaster distract attention from the absence of a quality story, here this effect is achieved with crazy reactions, shocking scenes, and keeping the viewer in a constant state of mesmerized disgust.
The main role is played by Agathe Rousselle, whom I've never seen before, so I'm not sure if she is unlikable by nature, or if she deliberately caused this effect for this role. However, she nailed the role. It's simply unbelievable how the same person is so repulsive and disgusting that you want them to get off the screen as soon as possible and at the same time the main reason to watch the movie to the end. An Oscar-worthy performance and the only thing really worth it in this film, besides possibly Vincent Lindon. Two great performances in a movie where everything else is mediocre at best.
6/10 - DirectorRoseanne LiangStarsChloë Grace MoretzNick RobinsonBeulah KoaleA female WWII pilot traveling with top secret documents on a B-17 Flying Fortress encounters an evil presence on board the flight.Sarah Connor meets Spiderman
With her childhood roles ("The Amityville Horror", "Wicked Little Things", "The Third Nail", "Not Forgotten", and especially "Kick-Ass" and "Let Me In"), Chloë Moretz completely won me over, and in the following years I continued to follow her career and watch practically everything she was in. But as she grew up, the quality of her films, and also her performances, began to vary and decline, to the point where I gave up on her. Still, I continued to watch her, by inertia, I guess, and thus, a few years late, I reached "Shadow in the Cloud" from 2020.
Disappointed by her previous films, I didn't expect anything from this one either, so I didn't read about it, didn't watch trailers, or had any prior knowledge of the plot or quality. Well after midnight on a workday, I had the idea of taking a look for ten minutes and going to bed, but I remained glued to the screen.
I highly recommend "Shadow in the Cloud" to all fans of Chloë, dark atmosphere, fantasy, horror, movie "Sucker Punch" and especially "The Twilight Zone", as it reminds me irresistibly of an extended episode of this cult series. I also advise you to approach it without any prior knowledge, so that the film can realize its full potential of surprise effect. To say more about "Shadow in the Cloud" I have to include spoilers in the presentation, so if you want to take my advice and experience the maximum of what this movie has to offer, read no further.
!!! SPOILER ALERT !!!
A female aviator boards a fighter plane at the last moment, carrying a mysterious package and a written order from the top for the crew, to protect the package at all costs, without opening it, no matter what. The all-male crew obeys the written order, but treats her with a mixture of resentment and chauvinistic bullying, until in trouble she proves to be more "manly" than they are.
The whole movie takes place on a plane, during a night flight in stormy weather. The atmosphere is dark, tense, and extremely claustrophobic, from the very beginning it strongly affects the viewer, and the plot is quite promising. But as soon as we go a little deeper into the film, the script goes wild, and there are crazy subplots and twists full of holes, as well as action scenes that totally ignore the laws of physics and human anatomy. When they are simultaneously attacked by Japanese fighters and - ta-da-da-da - a gremlin!, the secret of the girl's mission is revealed, and the scenario turns into over-the-top melodramatic action-horror 'female empowerment' insanity.
It is exactly why most criticize this film. They feel that a potentially good WWII war mystery is ruined by cheap horror and melodrama. As mad and unrealistic as these elements are, the film, in my opinion, works very well and is extremely believable and tense despite the total unrealisticness. When we add to that a striking atmosphere and good acting, I cannot go below
8/10 - DirectorRichard ThorpeStarsElvis PresleyJudy TylerMickey ShaughnessyAfter serving time for manslaughter, young Vince Everett becomes a teenage rock star.(Vince aggressively kisses Peggy)
Peggy - How dare you think such cheap tactics would work with me!
(Vince again aggressively kisses Peggy)
Vince - That ain't tactics, honey. It's just the beast in me.
If you love Elvis, "Jailhouse Rock" is, as one of his most popular movies, a must-watch. If you're not a fan of the King, feel free to skip it, you won't miss anything special, because the only thing really worth it in the film are his performances, especially the title track, which has become a cult classic, and "Treat Me Nice". Everything else is a mediocre cliché about the rise, fall, and redemption of a rock star.
6,5/10 - CreatorDavid GreenwaltJoss WhedonStarsDavid BoreanazCharisma CarpenterAlexis DenisofThe vampire Angel, cursed with a soul, moves to Los Angeles and aids people with supernatural-related problems while questing for his own redemption.A spin-off that exceeded the original
When Angel left Sunnydale and the "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" series, he moved to LA and started a detective agency specializing in the supernatural. A spin-off also takes Cordelia and Wesley from the original series and "Angel" is born, a show that continues in the manner of "Buffy" and directly builds on it. However, despite many similarities, "Angel" is significantly darker (both figuratively and literally), more serious, and in every way surpasses Buffy, at least slightly (and somewhere by much more). The characters and their relationships are more mature and better developed, the story is more complex and coherent, the atmosphere is more powerful and the overall impression is much stronger. A opet, nisam siguran da li bi ova serija funkcionisala bez "Buffy". I see them as two sides of the same coin, or better, as the light and dark side of the moon.
8,5/10 - CreatorAli AdlerGreg BerlantiAndrew KreisbergStarsMelissa BenoistChyler LeighDavid HarewoodThe adventures of Superman's cousin and her own superhero career.OK for killing time
Supermen's cousin has her own show now and the show is dumb, but it's OK for lazy afternoons when you just want to relax and watch something with half of the brain. From the first episode, it irresistibly reminds me of "The Flash", literally the same story with different actors, and then they even cross them and Flash appears near the end of the season. Objectively, it is a lousy show, but I loved "Beverly Hills" in the '90s so this one fits me too.
5,5/10
After the second season, I have to improve my rating from 6 to 7. It's still more naive and childish than other superhero shows, but it's constantly improving and becoming more fun. If we ignore the lame musical crossover with "The Flash", which technically belongs to "The Flash" series anyway, the second season has no weak episodes. If you are a fan of dark and serious superheroes, like Nolan's Batman, this will look silly to you, even stupid, but if you like the classic approach to superheroes like they originally were, "Supergirl" will not disappoint you.
7/10
After the third season, I decided to give up. The series unnecessarily tangles itself to the point of becoming clumsy, along the way bombarding us with "modern film and TV trends" related to sexual, racial, and other diversity and tolerance, and looks more like a propaganda melodrama than a superhero action. I'm not saying it's particularly bad and it's certainly not boring, but with a sea of quality content that I won't be able to watch in three lifetimes, it's crazy to me to continue wasting time on something that's mediocre at best.
Final rating after three seasons:
6/10 - DirectorTim StoryStarsChloë Grace MoretzMichael PeñaColin JostA chaotic battle ensues between Jerry Mouse, who has taken refuge in the Royal Gate Hotel, and Tom Cat, who is hired to drive him away before the day of a big wedding arrives.Caught me on nostalgia
"Tom and Jerry" is a feature-length film that combines live-action and animation, based on the original short cartoons by Hanna and Barbera and inspired by the cult movie from 1988, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit". The screenplay is a collection of clichés without an iota of originality, but that doesn't make this movie bad, because how can a reprise of the legendary Tom and Jerry slapstick gags be bad. Here, Chloe is given the type of role that suits her perfectly, and Tom and Jerry, supported by William Hanna's archive audio recordings, return to the screen in full glory, not at all behind their performances from the mid-twentieth century. All in all, nothing new and spectacular, but a decently done tribute to Hana and Barbera, forgettable, but also nostalgically pleasant and satisfyingly entertaining.
7/10 - CreatorLauren IungerichStarsAshley RickardsBeau MirchoffJillian Rose ReedAn unpopular 15-year-old gains immediate, yet unwanted, popularity at her high school when the student body mistakes an accident she has for a suicide attempt.Relaxing and refreshing
Let's face it, this is an MTV series, which lowers expectations by default. Also, this is a teenage "coming of age" melodramatic comedy. Expectations go down a few more steps. Now, when you start watching "Awkward" from this starting point, the series will certainly not disappoint you. What's more, for its genre and production, it is above average.
The story is quite realistic, without excessive drama and excessive caricature, just as awkward as the life of an average high school student is. All technical and essential aspects are at a satisfactory level, nothing spectacularly good, but there are no major flaws either. The actors are charismatic with good mutual chemistry, the pacing is well measured and, if you don't have too high expectations, the series will honestly entertain you, occasionally make you genuinely laugh, and even cause a tear here and there.
Its biggest drawback is the drop in quality from season to season. While some respect only the first season, some defend the next two as well, while the last one is really an unnecessary stretch, although without it the story would remain incomplete. The strongest asset, at least from my perspective, is that it is natural, unartificial, unencumbered by the aggressive Woke culture/propaganda that increasingly dominates television.
7/10