Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
ListsAn error has ocurred. Please try again
Having watched it again, I'm going to be perfectly honest and say that my opinion on this film hasn't changed all that much. Let me start off by saying that I thought the direction of the film was fine, nothing great. This is a lot more than I can say for the acting, which was, there I say, below average, especially from the lead actress; there was one exception though, and that (at least. for me) was the actress who played the little sister.
I'm not sure that there's much that I can say for the writing, as it was adapted from a book that I hardly ever got into. I will say this though, most of the dialogue (between the girl and the love-interest)was, in my honest opinion, was incredibly dull and sappy.
I will admit that this film clearly wasn't made for me. However, I've seen many other YA films (better written and far better acted) that I actually found myself to enjoy. I'm not certain of it, but I have the obvious feeling that the main reason critics praised this is because the lead actress is Asian-American.
C- from me.
Ignore the naysayers
Co-directed by Tinto Brass and Bob Gucciane (who also served as co-producer), Caligula stars Malcom McDowell as the titular character, along with Teresa Ann Savoy, Helen Mirren, and Peter O'Tool as Tiberius Caesar. It is a historical drama revolving around none other than the titular character, Caligula, and tells the story of before and when he reigned.
Since the year it was released, critics and some (if not, most) of the mass majority have dismissed as nothing but a porno. To which, I respond by asking a simple question, 'how?' I mean, it does have countless sex scenes (which are, without a doubt, very explicit); including the orgies. But last time I checked, a porno is usually very low budget, which this film was clearly the opposite; after all, it has an actual (as well as, there I say, true) story. Each and every one of the set designs look genuine at best, and I could basically say the same thing for wardrobe designs.
As for the acting, where do I begin? McDowell gives one of his best (if not, the best) performances of his entire career. Savoy was terrific in the role she played. She was sexy in pretty much every scene she was in, and the same thing can be said for of course Helen Mirren; and no, it was not just because of their nude scenes; O'Tool was also pretty good, despite the fact that he was apparently drunk when filming most (if not, all) of his scenes.
Like it or not, this film is, without a shadow of a doubt, a masterpiece. I will agree most (if not, all) of the scenes involving graphic intercourse (as well as felletio) were a lot longer than they needed to be, but using said scenes to dismiss the film as a 100% failure is just flat-out redundant; unless you are a prude, sex and or nudity should not be difficult to embrace, nor even view.
Beauty and the Beast gets a pass, but this doesn't?
Dumbo stars Colin Farrell, Michael Keaton, Eva Green, Alan Arkin, and Danny DeVito. It was directed by "you know who" and was written by Ehren Kruger who is apparently infamous for his work on the Transformers films.
I'm gonna continue by saying that I went into the film with expectations as low as you can possibly imagine. And after having seen it, I will be honest and say that I enjoyed it. While far from great, I still found myself enjoying it for the most part.
PROS: 1. The direction - Tim burton has gotten a ton of backlash, which is nothing new. I've seen few critics go out of their way by trashing films of his such as Batman Returns and, of course, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Now, Alice in Wonderland, on the other hand, I understand, to be honest, as it was the least faithful to its source material. But come on, this, and the other two I mention, are perfectly fine, by direction stand-point. I mean, the way it was shot, the costume designs, and even the set designs looked spot on.
2. The cgi- Unlike some people, I thought that the cgi was on point. Dumbo, the titular character, looked pretty genuine from my view-point, that is except when he flew. Not only that, watching him (spoiler) react to his mom being taken away was, honestly, pretty hard to watch.
3. And last, but not least, Danny DeVito. What can I say other than he basically stole the show; no pun intended. I don't know how, I really can't put my finger on it, he just stood out for me.
CONS: 1. The acting - Yes, I will admit that the acting, while not bad per say, it was not very good, especially from the two child actors. In addition, Eva Green carries an accent throughout the majority of the film. Specifically, it's a French one. And I don't know, is it even her natural accent? Because it sounded pretty unconvincing to me; which is pretty ironic, considering that the actress is, in fact, French.
2. The writing - This is, quite obviously, the main issue that critics and the mass majority had with the film. Yes, the pacing isn't (very) well-handled and the first two acts are quite subpar. But on top of that, the third act is where things finally start to pick up. And last, but certainly not least, I will agree that most (if not, all) of the "characters", with the exception of the titular one, were not all that interesting. I mean, the only one that I found to be the most interesting was the one-armed dad. But other than that, the other few did not have as many layers as they could have.
So yeah, those are pretty much my only gripes with the film. With all that said, Dumbo is not a shot-for-shot remake, like Beauty and the Beast, it is, instead a (like it or not) re-imagining of the 1941 animated film. So don't go in expecting a mouse named Timothy (except maybe a brief cameo) and do not, do not expect any of the crows to appear. Not that I didn't like them in the original. But come on, do to the reputation they've gotten over the years, and the era we're living in now, I doubt that it would've been possible to have them in this.
All in all, this film isn't technically Oscar worthy, but it is still a good film, despite its flaws, and I give it an A-.
ALL LIVES MATTER
The movie is directed by, none other than, Jordan Peele, and stars ... Lupita Nyong'O, Winston Duke, as well as Elizabeth Moss.
1. The direction: What else can I say other than it's terrific. I mean, the filming locations are astonishing, as is the way the whole thing is shot.
2. The acting: Having seen her in only two movies, the only I've actually seen Lupita Nyongo'O act in was Black Panther. That being said, this is film I've seen her truly shine in. I can't go into very much detail, to be honest. All I can say is that this is the best I've seen her be in.
3. The score: First word that comes to mind would be wow. I will admit, I love the gothic genre, I love it to death; if you got that joke, good for you.
The writing: By now, you're probably thinking 'How dare you!? How dare you criticize the writing!? Jordan Peele won an Oscar for best original screenplay!' Here me out, upon watching the trailer for this movie, I thought to myself "Well, this does in no way look similar to The Strangers." But on top, I than thought, "You know what, I wanna go and see this." And surely enough, I did just that. And after which, I thought it was ... okay.
Here's the first act, 'This seems ... very weird,' here's the second, 'You're seriously going that direction?' And here's the third, 'Um ... okay.' Yeah, that should be saying a lot.
What I'm trying to say is that the second act was what truly aggravated me. You have this family who are blatantly the main focus of the film, and then you have this other family who are introduced in the first as (how do I put) a lot more self-indulgent. And if that doesn't sound aggravating enough, how 'bout this, they die. Yes, each and every member in that family gets killed by their own evil selves.
The reason this annoys me so much is because, and it should be obvious, the murder victims in the film are mostly Caucasian, including that one family. I mean, the way they are portrayed is as complete nimrods.
Last but not least, I got a Silent Hill vibe from the third act. I mean, come on, that's what the whole movie felt like, Silent Hill + The Strangers + The Purge.
All in all, while not scary per say, this film is undeniably entertaining. After all, the ending did make up for it, to me at least, and I do recommend it.
Captain Marvel (2019)
Better than Wonder Woman
Ever since it's (1st) trailer, I had my expectations very minimal. I avoided the other trailers, as well as the more recent reviews it's gotten. With that said, I was, in all honesty, dying to go and see it. I didn't who to go with. My sister went and saw it not to long ago, and she loved it apparently, no surprise there. So yeah, I didn't know who to go with, or who would take me. However, Yolanda (she's a family friend and I've known her for as long as I can remember; she lives with us, technically) offered to go and see it with me. Long story short, we had to wait until Saturday to go and see it, and did just that.
So, we drove, went to a theater nearby, got popcorn and drinks, walked into the theater, and right over to our seats. As soon as the movie started, I started thinking to myself 'This is ... decent.' And when it ended, I was, honestly, quite impressed.
Let me continue off by saying that this film has spawned controversy. For those of you who aren't aware (which I doubt there are), this was before the film was actually released. There've been videos debating whether it was going to be bad or not. No BS, for those who don't know (he's the guy I used to be subscribed to; but now I'm not, and for obvious reasons) bashed the film before it came out. I come on, covering something before it's released is one thing. But chastising something (specifically a film or show) without having seen the full picture? Whether something like that's been happening for decades or not, it really gets on my nerves.
I mean, look at Titans. Having not watched seen one episode of it, I might be one of the only group of people who actually enjoyed the trailer for it, despite the fact that it got more than a thousand dislikes. But on top of that, the ratings for it have turned out to be quite excellent.
Anyway, having finally seen the movie itself, I will be completely honest and say that I liked it, I did not love it, I liked it quite a lot. I thought the direction was nice, I liked the way it looked, I thought the song choices were pretty neat, and I thought that Brie Larson gave a decent performance. I'm gonna be perfectly honest and say that I liked her far better than Gal Godot as Wonder Woman.
I mean, the only reason I saw that film was because of all hype surrounding it, and I was pretty underwhelmed. And I'm positive that the real reason Gadot was praised was because of the way she looked and or simply because she was hot; and as far as I can remember, she showed about two facial expressions throughout the whole thing, and don't get me started on her line delivery.
Larson, on the other hand, does (in my opinion) a fine job in her role. It's not Oscar worthy, by any means, but it is quite good. She's not portrayed as some naive fish out of water (probably because the character wasn't written to be) and he is certainly not played for eye-candy. She's smart, strong, confident, and independent; at least, that's her whole journey. I will add that the film had some decent humor also.
Now that I've talked about the pros, I will now be stating the cons. The fact that I liked it doesn't change the fact that the film wasn't as great as it could've been. It felt mostly rushed at times, there were other times where the CGI looked pretty cheep, and the acting ... I will say that it wasn't bad. For example, there's a subplot involving Carol having a niece (not biologically, because ... if you've seen it, you know what I mean). And Every time she appeared on screen, I kept thinking to myself, that kid might need an acting coach.
As for Sam L. Jackson, he was not bad (far from, actually), it's just ... it felt to me like he was playing himself more than the character of Nick Fury like he usually does for the majority of this film; he had a cg mutant cat as a sidekick.
With all said, Captain Marvel isn't the best movie I've seen this year, but it's certainly the best Marvel movie I've seen in said year.
Atomic Blond + Smokin Aces = THIS
Directed by the same jackass who directed Spun, Polar is a (supposed) Neo-noir action film that stars Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Kathryne Winnick and (a miscast) Matt Lucas.
Now how do I start this off? So there's this guy, Duncan, who is apparently a retiring assassin. He meets Camile, a young woman, at a convenience store of some sort. Meanwhile, a gang of other assassins are, I guess, hired by this other guy, a criminal mastermind (who makes Oswald Cobblepot look like the Mountain from GOT) along with some femme fatale. Yeah, it's as boring as it sounds.
ACTING - Let my start by saying that three of the actors (that of course being Mikkelson, Hudgens, and Winnick) look beyond bored every two seconds; they looked even more bored than I was. Not only that, Mikkelson and Hudgens have little to no chemistry.
WRITING - Oh boy, where do I begin? First off, I've not read the graphical this film is based on, but surely the writing in it is ten times better than this. The two leads are two dimensional, the villains are caricatures, and the supporting characters are, well, just extras, nothing more.
DIRECTION - I will be honest and say that it is not the worst I've ever seen, but it is till pretty bad. What can I say about the editing or than it sucks? It should go without saying that this film lacks a consistent tone, sometimes its melodramatic, other times it's an over the top action flick. I should also mentioned the gratuitous sex scenes in this. The opening scene features a chick exiting a pool and ... you could probably figure out the rest. Another scene features the main character in bed with, I guess, a widowed Russian mother, and it's as explicit as you can imagine. Yet another scene features the main character having sex with one of the assassins (specifically the chick in the opening), and it's even more explicit than the other two; yeah, the actress was basically there for no reason other than to serve as eye candy.
VERDICT - This is a bad film, not just because it doesn't have and identity, but also because it has no worth while quality; I drank at least three cups of coffee just to stay awake. It has T&A alright, but it's purely just to distract us from the boring plot. Unless you have the IQ of a 13-year-old, this film is in no way worth your time, and I give it a solid D.
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Now, don't get all surprised. I did not hate the movie, quite the opposite in fact. I dug the opening scene (or prologue, or whatever), I enjoyed the pacing (at least, for the most part), and the third act was, there I say, on point.
The direction - I must say that almost every scene in this film is shot beautifully.
The acting - I honestly cannot recall one poorly acted moment from any of the actors, and that's all I have to say.
The opening scene - As mentioned early, I dug it and thought that it was quite thrilling; one minute, you're having a picnic or something with your family, and the next, each and every one of them vanishes into thin air.
Each and every scene with Nebula - From the scene between her and Tony Start, to her trying to reason with Gamora, Thanos, and herself, literally.
Scott Lang (aka Antman) - Now, let's be honest, the actual plot of the movie would not have begun if it weren't for him. I mean, I'm not saying that he was a plot device (unlike somebody in the movie), he did have a character arc; which is more than I can say for his role in Civil War. Anyway, as soon as Antman appeared onscreen, I kept wondering, 'How long was he in that machine? Why was he in it to begin with? Did I miss something?' (I've not seen Antman and the Wasp, for those of you who don't know) But surely enough, one of those questions was eventually answered. But the point is, I liked how the character was as (if not, more than) confused as I was. I mean, he pretty much stumbled upon the aftermath of an apocalypse.
The climax - All I can really say is 'Holy crap!' It had almost every MCU character that I wanted to see come back. And, for the most part, it did: Spider-Man, Scarlett Witch, Starlord, Black Panther, the list goes on. And when Captain America finally yelled "Avengers assemble!", I was like 'hell yes!'; though, I do wish that there'd been in the theater I was sitting in, because it was mostly just silence.
And last, but certainly not least, Tony Stark's funeral - First off, I did not expect the movie to go that direction; I mean, him dying just moments after snapping Thanos and his army into dust, it had me quite surprised. And the way his funeral was handled left me severely touched. After all, he had a daughter in the movie, and the very last line she had left theater I was in chuckling; yeah, it was obviously a nod to the first Iron Man movie.
The writing - I have no idea what the hell happened. Yes, the main plot of the film involves time-travel, which I honestly was expecting before going into this. And I will agree that the movie itself is now flooded with plot-holes, but I can only count two of them. The first one being with Nebula and her past self. I don't recall why, she ends ends up shooting her past self, and I'm positive that it actually kills past self. But, for whatever reason, future Nebula still remains; suspension of disbelief I guess.
Captain Marvel - a lot of people complained that she was barely in the movie, while others flat-out praised that fact. I, on the other hand, was pretty underwhelmed by her lack of screen-time. Maybe it was because Larson was busy filming her solo movie at the time, which is an unknown fact by the way. So yeah, she was nothing more than a plot-device; another gripe I had was that her was cut shorter, the more the movie when on, but that's just me.
Black Widow's sacrifice - To start off, when the team are traveling back in time, Natasha and Hawkeye go over to a familiar place. It is of course the same place Thanos and Gamora went to in the previous film, where he ... you know. Now, I'm not entirely sure how the whole thing went down (I mean, I had to use the restroom at least three times during the movie), but what I remember is Black Widow and Hawkeye end up fighting (for the second time in this franchise), and it ends with them hanging onto a cliff, moments before Natasha decides to let go and falls right to her (supposed) death. So yeah, as soon as the team make it back, Hawkeye informs them that Natasha did not make it, but they react by sadly saying 'Oh well.' Yeah, that's obviously not what either of them said, but that's the best description I have for that scene. I mean, not only do they brush it off likes it's nothing later on, the whole movie does that as well, they all mourn her death for just a few seconds; that being said, Tony Start died in a much better fashion than she did.
Thor and Hulk - Oh, dear god. For those of you who don't know, I don't like Thor Ragnarok, I thought it was needlessly comical at best, I didn't like that the supporting characters in the previous Thor films were killed off, and I thought that the new ones introduced were mostly annoying. That being said, I thought the makers of this franchise have already gotten their heads out of their asses, and redeemed Thor as the badass we all know and love, like he was in the previous film. Sadly though, we did not, as they makers of this screwed his character up big time. They gave him his long blond hair back, which I actually appreciated, but they also gave him a pot-belly; yes, a pot belly. The worst part for me was that they even brought back Valkyire and Korg. Many people have also complained the portrayal of Hulk in this, but I honestly could care less; I've never liked Mark Ruffalo in the role to begin with. So yeah, Thor was just comic relief for the majority of the film.
Another huge gripe I had was not having Sif in the movie - I mean, come on, she was one of the best parts of the first two Thor movies. And now, what the hell? Since Thor: The Dark World, she's just gone, without a single trace. But that's okay, she was replaced with Valkyrie; I'm sorry, I really don't like that character.
Yet another gripe that I had was the the movie didn't include that one song by 30 Seconds to Mars called "This is war". I'm just saying that it was a huge missed opportunity.
And last but certainly not least, the ending - Now, I've read comments from people across the internet saying that they actually like (if not, love) the film's ending. I on the other hand cannot see how; and yes, it is the second (if not, biggest plot-hole) that I can count. The last scene of the film is Hulk sending Captain America back in time again. And I assumed that it was to save Black Widow, but no. Apparently it was so he could reunite with Peggy Carter, his love interest from the first Captain America movie. I mean, the scene shows him as an elder sitting alone at a bench, and then giving his shield to Falcon; not Bucky, Falcon. And the very last shot is him and Peggy slowly dancing together. Where do I begin? There was a scene of him staring at Peggy through a glass window, but, honestly, that could've been cut from the film entirely. Or they could have kept that scene, and instead have him give the shield her as a memory of him; yeah, doesn't make a lick of sense, but it certainly makes more sense than what the writers went with. Also, the fact that Steve reunited with her in whatever year he went back to, he would not have ever become an avenger. I mean, did he really keep the shield for that long? And the fact that he stayed in that time period, how did they avengers win the battle, or the passed battles that they fought in? Do you expect us to believe that the alternate timelines still exist and Captain America in said time periods is still present in them? Lastly, why reunite with Peggy? Steve was much closer to Natasha than he's ever been with anyone; seriously, the more you think about all of it, the less sense it starts to make.
Another thing that I've been hearing was that Brie Larson/Captain Marvel has been getting blamed for some (if not, most) of this movie's flaws, which is quite unfair if you ask me. And I'd hate to say this, because I know that it's going to piss a lot of MCU fans off, but Captain Marvel (which I actually liked) had much better payoff than this film did.
Pulls no punches
Directed and co-written by Italian filmmaker Tinto Brass (known for many of his erotic films), Monamour stars Anna Jimskaia (in her feature debut), along with Riccardo Marina and Max Parodi (who've also been in Brass' previous films), and tells the story about a young woman living a mundane sex life with her husband. During which, she meets a young suave Leon, who tries desperately to get into her pants (or lack there of) which she never actually refuses.
Now, let me start off by saying that this is practically my number 1 favorite Tinto Brass movie of all time. And it's not for the reason you might think; okay it is, but for the most part. One of the main reasons I loved this movie is the fact that it holds nothing back whatsoever. And if you've actually seen it, you know exactly what I mean. Each and very scene is shot, there I say, beautifully; the camera angles, the lighting, and so forth. The acting (mostly from the guy playing the husband) is also spot on.
And last, but certainly not least, the leading actress herself Anna Jimskaia (who apparently hasn't had any starring roles since this one). What else can I say other than she is down-right gorgeous in this. I'd like to add that this woman apparently started her career as a circus acrobatic, which may very well explain her artistic form. To me, is unbelievable of how fearless she was in showing every inch of herself off, but I guess that could be said for the other actresses who starred in the previous Brass films.
If there's one tiny gripe I had with the film, it'd be the film audio. I really don't know what king of boom mice(s) they used, because most of the voices from the actors sounded as though they had been dubbed.
All that being said, I can see why a lot of people will not get into a film like this (no pun intended), but I could really care less. This is one of Tinto Brass' best films to date, and I would go as far as to name it my favorite erotic film period. It is a flawed masterpiece that deserves an A+.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
Dated at best
Directed By Tobe Hooper, the film tells the (supposed) story about a group of five young adults who go on a road trip to Texas (as the title makes it clear), only to soon find themselves in a sticky (or should I say deadly) situation, as each and every one of the youths are eventually attacked by a masked killer.
The film (supposedly) stars Marilyn Burns as Sally, one of the five youths, and introduces us to Gunnar Hansen as the chainsaw wielding maniac, Leatherface. I just watched the film last night, and it was my second or third time having seen it. The first time I ever watched it was about seven-and-a-half-years ago. And all I can say it, it did not scare me as much as I wanted it to; and as for the (first two) sequels , they were really no better.
I've heard a lot of the mass majority regard this film as a horror masterpiece, so I decided to get it one last viewing. All that being said, I respect this film as a horror, I even respect it as a classic. But does that mean it holds up? To be perfectly honest, not really.
Let me continue by saying that the cinematography in this film is absolutely outstanding, and that can also be said for the production design. Everything else about the film is (there I say) incredibly dated. While the film is mildly unsettling in some areas, it contains quite a few boring and unintentionally goofy moments as well.
Now, onto the characters ... yeah, about that, the only one out of the five victims with the most (if not, actual) development was the guy in the wheelchair, Franklin. Now, I've read many say that they found his character to be annoying, but that's where I somewhat disagree. I couldn't help but pity him as the other four (including Sally, his sister) virtually disregarded him when arriving to that old cabin. I also admired that one scene with him having a brief conversation with Sally. He technically came off as the smartest one out of the five; and, compared to everyone else, he had the most screen-time. With that said, I virtually couldn't care less about the other three.
All in all, this movie is, without a doubt, a cult classic, but that doesn't excuse it from being dated as a '70s exploitation horror-slasher. The film did not technically start the slasher formula (that would go to A Bay of Blood), but it did take said formula to the next level (specifically with the final girl trope), and that's best credit I give to it.
47 Meters Down (2017)
Suspend your disbelief
Directed and co-written by Johannes Roberts, 47 Meters Down stars Claire Holt and Mandy Moore as two sisters who (while vacationing in Mexico) decide to take a trip in a diving cage to seek sharks after one of them had recently broken up with a boyfriend. All hell eventually breaks loose (literally) as the rope holding the cage snaps, causing said cage to fall 47 meters down into the bottom of the ocean.
I'm going to be honest and say that Holt was pretty decent in the film, which is more than I can see for Moore. All I can really say is that I just didn't find her very convincing in this. Another gripe I had with the film was the twist: on one hand, it felt like one giant middle finger. But on the other hand, perhaps it was in there in order relieve the stress that the viewer is probably feeling. After all, I did in fact want nothing to happen to either of the two young woman and wanted both to make it out alive; sadly though, only one of them apparently did.
For my final verdict, the film is far from great, but it is not as bad as many have made it out to be. If anything, it is decent at best. And in my honest opinion, it is quite suspenseful (for the most part). I've also read some reviews saying that the whole thing is unrealistic; well guess what, no movie (especially in the horror genre) is required to be realistic.
Slender Man (2018)
What the hell is everyone's problem?
Directed by Sylvain White (whom I'm in no way familiar with), Slender Man is a 2018 horror film based on the internet meme of the same name. It (supposedly) Stars Joey King, along with Annalise Basso, Julia Goldani Telles, and Jazz Sinclair as a group of four teenage friends. During a school trip, one of them, Katie (Basso) disappears miraculously. This leads the other three friends to try and investigate. But all hell breaks loose, as they soon fall into the same fate, one by one.
Ever since it's theatrical release, this film has been railroaded by critics, especially the mass majority. Because of this, I was reluctant to go and see it, specifically with my mom; as instead, we went and saw Christopher Robin, and we both enjoyed it very much. With that said, I (finally) managed to pull it up online, and finally watched it. Is it is bad as it's been made out to be? No, actually, it's not. I'm sorry to say that actually found this movie very unnerving.
Many people (mostly on YouTube) act like it fails on every level, which (at least, in my opinion) is in no way the case. It's well shot, has great tension, and the acting (for the most part) isn't half bad; I actually felt bad for these four girls and what was happening to them. And despite having top billing, Joey King isn't the real star of the film; she's not even in it all that much. The true star of the film is Julie G. Telles as Hallie. While not great, she gives quite a decent performance.
I'm not entirely sure how this movie could've turned out better, specifically for social media. Many have complained that it came out too late, while others complained that it's PG-13 and not R-rated; yeah, sounds a lot like 20 % of the criticism on Venom. I partially agree with this as there was clearly a scene in the trailer that would've warranted it an R-rating. However, I can assure everyone that no horror movie is required to have an R-rating; implying that it's going to have blood and gore.
Lastly, many have said that they found the whole thing unintentionally hilarious. Last time I checked, Ouija 2 (also pg13) had some unintentionally funny bits. Yet, that film had been praised by many.
Overall, this is a film that does not deserve all the hate that it's gotten. Maybe if it had a different title, or if the premise didn't involve a "dated" creepypasta meme, it would've gotten a better reputation. I can't be sure if it gains said reputation in the future, but it is possible.
Day of the Woman (1978)
Not for everyone
It's been over three years since the 1st time I watched this film. Having looked into it for the 2nd time, I'm going to say that my thoughts on it have not differed all that much. This is, without a doubt, an independent film, and boy does it show. It has no score whatsoever, which makes it all the more interesting, imo.
It follows Jennifer Hills, a young female writer renting a cottage to live in for the summer. During her stay, she meets Matthew, a mentally challenged man who delivers groceries to her. She also catches the attention of Johnny, a gas station attendant, as well as two unemployed hooligans. Sooner or later, she is abducted by said hooligans and taken into the woods. All hell soon breaks loose as she is ambushed and gang-raped THREE TIMES; and it just so happens to be a ploy for Matthew to lose his virginity.
As soon as they flee, the gang encourage Matthew to finish Jennifer off (specifically by fatally stabbing her). Reluctant though, even when participating in the gang-rape, he manages to temporarily fool the gang before said gang finally flees. After regaining her stability, Jennifer plots revenge against all four of the men responsible.
Now, let me just say that many (myself included) have compared this to Wes Craven's The Last House on the Left. In all honesty, this superasses said film in almost every way. First off, unlike that film, this one has no tonal shift; after all, it, again, has no soundtrack. Secondly, the lead is ten times better than the supposed one in TLHOTL. I mean, she is an actual character after all. Third, most importantly, the main heroin isn't a helpless nobody; again, like the supposed one in TLHOTL.
It irritates the hell out of me that critics (specifically Roger Ebert) have slammed this film over the years, but (funny enough) praised TLHOTL a few years earlier.
My only gripe with this film is the audio (in some retrospects). Lastly I really can't bear to watch the scene with the bathtub; the first time that I did, it messed me up quite a lot.
All build up, little payoff
Directed and co-written by David Gordon Green, who gave us films such as Pineapple Express, The Sitter (in which the only one I've seen), Your Highness, and Stronger; it is also co-written by Danny McBride, big surprise there. It stars none other than Jamie Lee Curtis, who reprises her role (for the fourth time) as Laurie Strode, along with Judy Greer as her daughter, Karen, and introduces us to Andi Matichak as her granddaughter, Allyson.
Set in present day, 40 years after the events of the first film, Michael Myers, now incarcerated (for the second time in his life), is greeted by two true-crime pod-casters, Aaron Korey and Dana Haines (played by Jefferson Hall and Rhian Rees) who interview him, or at least try to; one of (no surprise) even does the unthinkable by pulling out the supposed mask from the first film and shows it out in the open to Michael (as well as the fellow patients). Unfortunately though, both of them end up getting axed off within the start of the second act, which I found to be quite a bummer; but what do you expect from a slasher film?
JLC continues owning the role of Laurie Strode, the young actress does a pretty good job of playing the granddaughter, and JG isn't half bad herself. The prologue scene is quite suspenseful, as is the climax. There is a scene with the granddaughter's friend as she is babysitting; if you've seen the trailer, you know exactly what I'm talking about. How that scene was structured, it actually made me care.
If I could name one thing that I didn't like about this movie, it's the scenes with the granddaughter and her boyfriend. I mean, the film did set this dude up. But at the end of the second act, he makes a jackass of himself, setting the granddaughter off on her own (along with a friend of his), and just vanishes. What I also disliked was when the guy's friend began hitting on said girl: 1. I'm pretty sure that there have been similar scenes in other slasher films prior to this, specifically ones from the 80s 2. This is giving the viewer a legitimate reason not to care about him when he soon gets axed off by Myers.
Not that this isn't a good film in any way, it just could've been better. It has few (if not many) flaws, as well as, imo, many missed opportunities. With all that said, this is, imho, the fourth (if not, fifth) best Halloween movie in it's saga, and I'm giving it an A-
Don't Talk to Irene (2017)
The Tumblr version of Bring It On
I gotta say, this wasn't as bad as I thought it'd be. No, it was way, way worse. Now, you can look me in the eye and tell me that How To Get Girls was far worse (all I can say though is that film was just a waste of time and effort, as well as David Koechner's talent), but THIS was just a whole hour of PCA shoved down my throat.
The film revolves around the titular character, Irene, a morbidly obese nerdy teenager who dreams of becoming a cheerleader. When going to school, she meets a blonde girl who goes out of her way by getting said character (and herself) into trouble, landing both of them, as well as some dude, into a retirement home for, I guess, community service.
I could go into as much detail as I need to; honestly though, I'm not going to. When I first watched the trailer, I didn't expect much, except for maybe a lighthearted drama. What I got though, that's another story. Basically, the whole thing felt like two ideas meshed into one. This has been labled as a comedy, yet most (if not all) of the jokes fall dead flat. With that said, I hardly ever laughed once.
Lastly, I assumed that the blonde girl would (sooner or later) form a somewhat friendship with the titular character. But no, she's just there to be the stereotypical blonde c*nt until the very end; she's basically a plot-device.
All in all, this overrated excuse for a comedy makes both HTGG (as well as Welcome To The Dollhouse) look like Revenge of the Nerds, and I'm giving it a solid D -.
Locked Up (2017)
It's as good as it gets.
Having watched it on Netflix not too long ago, I really can't see what all the fuss is about. I will assume that most people who hated it had their expectations a little too high. The film features an entire cast of unknowns, obviously. It stars Kelly McCart as Mallory, a young American girl living Southeast Asia who is sent to prison after a self-defense attack on a bully. It's not until 7-10 minutes in as the plot gets going. But when it does, things get, there I say, pretty crazy. I did not expect this to throw as many punches as it did (literally), and boy did it show; again, literally.
Now, many have criticized the film's writing, as well as the acting, and I can certainly see why. The premise (as interesting as it may sound) ain't nothing new, and this is coming from someone who saw Jailbait about a year ago; and as I've stated before, the plot doesn't really get going until 7-10 minutes in. The acting (while not good, per-say) is, in my honest opinion, not terrible.
All in all, this flick ain't nothing special. if you're one of the seekers expecting a form of substance, prepare to be disappointed, as you'll find very little of it in this. If you are, however, a movie buff seeking entertainment, this flick is definitely for you, because the true saving grace is the lead actress' (there I say) astonishing figure.
Babysitter Massacre (2013)
Poor Man's Halloween
It starts off pretty decently, a twenty-something-year-old babysitter, as the title leads us to believe, strips to take a bath (and might I just say that she has quite a body), right up until she is held captive, tortured, and then murdered in a not to gruesome fashion, by an unknown figure.
We then cut to sometime later during Halloween, as we are introduced to our supposed main heroine, Angela, whom I guess had been friends with the girl in the opening (though, through tedious exposition, we are told that it might have actually been someone else), and just so happens to be close to the supposed father of said person. Yeah, she really isn't that interesting, at least not as much her lesbian-like punk friend, Bianca, and I don't mean that in a positive manner. Every word that came out of this chicks mouth made it sound like she was a transgender of some sort. While I'll admit that the main girl's friends were nice to look at (more so than her), I won't be ignoring the fact that both said 'characters' are virtually useless.
What irritated me the most was the kills; not the kills themselves, but the specific victims of them. Not only were the kills sappy at best, most of them had no real purpose. Whether we know who the person is or not, she (or he) gets axed off within less than a minute: mostly it's the ones played by actresses far more attractive than the 'supposed main heroine'; hell, there is even a nerdy (yet extremely horny) chick who is ten times hotter than said heroine, but I digress.
THIS was nothing but a FETISH film. If T&A are the ONLY good things your movie has to offer, I really can't help but feel sorry for you.
Graduation Day (1981)
A high school massacre takes place after the tragic death of a female track runner. Yeah, not the most interesting premise, but it could've turned out well if there was any effort put into it. What does this movie do wrong you may wonder, what doesn't it do wrong? What doesn't this movie do at all? I'll tell you, build tension or develop it characters. Yeah, who needs people you can care about, whether they die or not? Oh yeah, I guess that's all we wanna watch them do, die. The only character with, I guess, the most development is the deceased girl's older sister, who's name isn't that important enough to remember; honestly though, she is not the least bit interesting. With all that said, this is not the worst horror film ever, but I would definitely call it the worst slasher film of all time.
Nine Months (1995)
Nine months gets nine stars
Being an apparent remake of a French film (in which I have not seen, nor heard of, so I cannot compare it to this), this film is directed by Chris Columbus and stars Hugh Grant as Samuel Faulkner, a child psychologist who is in a romantic relationship with Rebecca Taylor (played by Julianne Moore), a kind-hearted ballet teacher. One day at the beach, Rebecca decides on taking their relationship to the next level, as she considers on starting a family with him. Having mixed feelings about the idea, Samuel avoids telling her how he really feels; he fears, not only commitment, but confrontation as well.
There is also a sub- plot involving another couple (played by Tom Arnold and Joan Cusack), who are in fact married with three girls (two of them played by Ashley Johnson and Alexa Vega). Much to Samuel's annoyance, the couple seemingly brag about their somewhat perfection and lifestyle as far shoving it in everyone else's face. That may not be the case, however, as Rebecca forms a bond with the wife. Tired of his cowardliness, Rebecca then decides to leave him as she claims that she can manage a family on her own. It is then settled as Samuel learns to face reality and do something more with his life; more so, accepting the position of becoming a father.
First, I would like to add that I was about 5-8 when I first saw this movie, and I remember quite a lot of scenes from it. Second, this is the first movie I have seen both Hugh Grant and Julianne Moore in (and I don't recall ever seeing Joan Cusack in anything prior to this either). With that said, Grant and Moore work marvelous off of each other. Arnold and Cusack are also pretty good in this, but they didn't stand out as much as I thought they had. My biggest gripe with the film is Jeff Goldblum as Samuel's friend, Sean. I'm not entirely sure, it felt like he was just phoning it in the whole time; he seemed completely bored and unfocused. Last, but definitely not least, we have Robin Williams as Kosevich, a blatantly inexperienced (and overtly sensitive) Russian doctor; while not my favorite part of the entire film, he was definitely a scene-stealer.
Overall, this is one of the most underrated films in cinematic history. I will not understand the hatred it's gotten, because it tackled on in-dearly relatable situations. With that said, I am happy to announce that this is one of the best comedies I have seen in my lifetime.
The premise is as simple as it sounds.
As you may know, I am a guy; as you may not, I am in fact single. And what us single guys do when we're all alone in a room (most likely our own) is go on our computers, look at and watch the most obvious subject for entertainment, pornography. Now before I go on, I will admit that I had been watching a lot of stuff involving said subject; I won't be giving the name of the website as you will have to find that out on your own. So, while doing just that, I happened to come across a thumbnail to this supposed short film. I then clicked on it and watched the video. I will now say that this film actually got to me.
This film was directed by Laurent Pratlong (who apparently hasn't done very much else), and it is at least three years old by now. The film opens with four hunters, along with a praying woman, as they wander in the woods along with a wolf. Being that this is a short film, there really is nothing much to spoil: What happens specifically is that the five of them come across a young girl lying down fetal position among the ground. As soon as she awakens, the girl stands up as she slowly walks forth while, of course, out in the open. Witnessing this, however, the four hunters, the four hunters, the praying woman, and the wolf are apparently terrified by this as they immediately flee.
Being not that important, I won't be going into detail on how it ends. I said before, this really got to me. The film stars Margot Lourdet as the titular naked girl; granted there isn't really a star in this, I'm not exaggerating when I say that said actress is the main star. As soon as she appeared on screen, my heart practically pounded. I wasn't sure what was to happen, but I was sure that it would be something spectacular to the eye. As seconds went by, I realized that I was absolutely correct. Zero punches are pulled as we are shown every single inch of this young lady, from the roof of her head down to her toes; the viewer is left to admire the beauty of her figure. This is not a motion picture of any kind, it is a short art-film.
Saving Silverman (2001)
Now this what I call a black-comedy
Three Neil Diamond fans, having been friends since the fifth grade, live a part-time-job as a tribute band. It is right up until they meet Judith (played by Amanda Peet), an attractive psychologist. One of the three, Darren (played by Jason Biggs) begins a relationship with her; however, she may not be as beautiful and charming as she may seem. As time passes, not only does she take advantage of him, but pretty much his entire life. Darren's friends, Wayne (played by Steve Zahn) and J.D. (played by Jack Black) draw the line to this as they go through non-easy tasks to get him back. The film also stars Amanda Detmer as Sandy, Darren's cheer-leading partner as well as high school crush.
The first thing I'd like to say is that I watched this expecting it to be nothing other than an American Pie clone, but that wasn't exactly the case. It doesn't revolve around sex-crazed teens, college kids, or anyone like that. This movie revolves around three musically talented (yet widely dimwitted and immature) adults. Much to my surprise, it is actually Wayne who is the smartest out of the three, while Darren is actually the dumb one; after all, it is made loud and clear that he's always been the most gullible. I mean, he literally cannot see for once that Judith is manipulating him.
I would also add that Amanda Peet does an excellent job playing the antagonist. The moment she appeared on screen, I did not get a good vibe from her. And as the film went on, I could definitely see why. SZ and JB also great jobs as the supportive best friends. Both, however, seemed very annoying at best during the first act. But, once again, as the film went on, I grew loving the hell out of both of them; not to mentioned that I laughed my nuts off during the kidnapping scene.
Honestly though, my favorite part of the whole thing was Sandy. I knew that I recognized the actress from something, but I couldn't figure out what. But as soon as I looked her up, I realized that she played the snotty girlfriend in Final Destination. She was absolutely adorable whenever she was on screen. From what I've read, critics have bashed this movie for its "mean-spiritedness". Honestly, that's definitely not how I saw it.
The Hills Run Red (2009)
Don't Underestimate it
A group of three documentarians, Tyler (played by Tad Hilgenbrink), his friend Lalo (played by Alex Wyndham) and his girlfriend Serina (played by Janet Montgomery) go on a journey to look for a lost snuff film with said title. They soon meet a stripper named Alexa (played by Sophie Monk) who, as it turns out, is the daughter of "said film" maker, Wilson Wyler Concannon. All four of them continue the journey as Tyler begins having the feeling that they are being watched.
With a premise like that, let me just say that I was not expecting very much from this film. It could very well have been one of those movies that are as bad as people usually make them out to be. But that really isn't the case with this. As soon as I had watched the opening, I thought that this would be nothing but an unintelligent gore-fest. Was I right, not really.
As the film goes on, it's actually quite tense. The characters are actually well fleshed out. Tyler is the determining leader of the group, as he is the one who is obsessed with finding said film, so much that he neglects everyone he knows. His friend Lalo may seem like the typical stoner, but he's really just the typical yes-man to everything, not that that's a bad thing. Despite being the most oblivious, he still manages to make a decent impression. As for the Serina, I had a blast watching her on screen. She may seem as the ambiguous girlfriend, but, once again, as the film goes on, she actually makes a name for herself.
Last, but not least, we have Alexa, the "leading" character. The fact that actress Sophie Monk has top-billing, surely, she would not be used as eye-candy. But was she not entirely. As I said, she is a stripper the first-time Tyler meets her. And at times, we do see her bare jugs. But besides that, she does have an actual purpose. Like I said before, she is the daughter of a snuff filmmaker.
With all of that said, are there any flaws, definitely. But the only one that I had with it was the twist. While I'll admit that I didn't see it coming, it did feel like a clique to me. But other than that, I'm sure that this movie will give you the same unnerving feeling it gave me.
It could've worked
I really don't know where to start, but here it goes:
THE GOOD: Cuba Gooding Jr. What else can I say; this man has had several Oscar nominations. So far in his life, he has only won ONE. With that said, this should have been his next.
THE BAD: EVERYTHING ELSE! I mean, the premise alone is, not only brilliant, but unique: An adolescent boy with a rare condition that causes baldness, how in the hell couldn't they have made that work!?
I'll tell you how, just let me list down every adolescent movie clique you can think of:
- It starts out with the protagonist having a regular everyday life, up until his (or her) parent tells the whole family that they have to move.
- Upon arriving to the new place, the protagonist has a real difficult time fitting in. More so, he (or she) is picked on just for being "different".
- He (or she) eventually falls for an attractive, yet completely shallow, girl (or guy) and tries hard in so many ways to get her (or his attention).
- At the end of the climax, he (or she) later realizes that he (or she) never needed affection from her (or him) to begin with.
this whole movie is filled with nothing but one bad joke after another: each one relies on either pedophilia, awkwardness, or bad taste.
THE ACTING: What else can I say other than the fact that it is god- awful. I mean, as bad as everyone else is in this, they are nowhere near as horrendous as Spencer Breslin. He's proved that, since The Santa Clause 2, he cannot act to save his life.
All in all, (with the exception of CGJr.) there is no real effort put into this train wreck whatsoever, so don't waste your time on it.
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
The best '70s heist movie I've ever seen
Directed by Sidney Lumet and written by Frank Pierson, this film tells the apparent true story of a bank robbery that would turn into a media sensation. The movie stars Al Pacino from, of course, the Godfather trilogy, as the antihero, Sonny (who, as it turns out, is based off of the real-life bank robber, John Wojtowicz) as well as John Cazale, who was also in the Godfather films, as his partner, Sal, based off of Salvatore Naturale.
Now let me start out by saying that I DID watch the trailer for this film, like two or three weeks ago (yeah, it showed many important scenes of the movie, which is why I immediately stopped watching it). But after actually viewing it, I will say that this film had me on the edge of my seat from beginning to end.
This film has the best cinematography I have ever seen since 2001: A Space Odyssey. Not only that, this has the most stable audio out of any 1970s film I've ever heard. I'd also like to add this film is loaded with f-bombs; I have not heard this many uses of them in a film from the '70s since Punishment Park.
Last, but definitely not least, Pacino is, of course, the one who steals this movie. This guy gives the greatest performance I have ever seen from him, more so than, there I say it, in pretty much all of the Godfather films combined. Every single moment he was on screen, I sympathized with him to no end. To those who have not seen this film, do yourselves a favor and do just that.
Now, first off, I have seen the RT score for this film before going to see it; about four or five days prior, more specifically. And just for that, I became somewhat nervous about seeing about seeing the film. So after doing just that, I will say that this film was ABSOLUTELY OUTSTANDING. I have no idea why it has the rating that it does (I mean, I would expect it to be at least somewhere in the 50s), because this movie is one of the best I've seen all year. The movie is directed by Morten Tyldum, written by Jon Spaihts, and stars Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt who share very decent chemistry with one-another.
With all of that said, I must say that this by far the best Sci-fi film I have ever seen since Interstellar. I mean, the opening was, there I say, breathtaking, but the way the whole thing is executed is absolutely brilliant! Now many critics, from what I know, have complained about its story-line, and I can certainly understand why.
From my first thoughts, as soon as Aurora awakens from her pod, Jim immediately goes running off to, what I can assume, hide from her until she walks out and about the same way he did. And when introducing himself to her, there really isn't much of a mystery behind him; we already know him but we don't really know her, or so we think. Maybe if they had switched the first and second and, then maybe we would've gotten to know HER character more before his. But that really isn't the case.
It seems as though many have complained about the way the plot was structured, but half of them, surprisingly, have criticized it for its execution of most things; more specifically, the fact that Pratt's character wakes Lawrence's up. And yes, I'm aware that they didn't make that quite clear in the trailer. But for the sake of unpredictability, I'm actually glad that they didn't. The first half of this movie focuses entirely on Pratt's character, Jim. And the reason for which is because we UNDERSTAND HIS ACTIONS. Being the only human awake and active on a ship for that long, that can and would be very difficult to cope with.
The one problem I DID have, however (but it may just be a nitpick), was during the first act when Pratt had that long facial hair coming in; not only did it look laughably fake, it seemed goofy and a little bit out of place.
For my final verdict, for a long time I was expecting to see a science fiction movie that would let me actually think, and that is exactly what I got when and after viewing this; like Interstellar, as well as 2001: A Space Odyssey, IT LET'S YOU USE YOUR MIND.
Sing Street (2016)
A feel-good film, I must say
The film is written and directed by Irish filmmaker John Carney (who's written and directed, as well as composed, films that I hadn't seen nor heard of prior hand, and for obvious reasons) and is set in the 1980s, as tells the story of a teenager in Dublin named Conor who is sent to a Christian school by his folks. He does not fit in, of course, but that is up until he meets a boy named Darren who eventually becomes his ally. He then meets a young-adult lady named Raphina, whom he immediately falls for. On top of that, both he and Darren go to a house to meet Eamon who has an entire collection of instruments. All three of them then start a band, bringing along three more guys, with Darren as the manager.
I will say that the cast do quite well with the material they're given: Ferdia Walsh-Peelo does a fair job as Conor (also known as Cosmo), Lucy Boynton is outstanding as the female lead, Raphina, and Jack Reynor who is spectacular as Conor's brother, Brendan. The cast also includes well-known, such as Aidan Gillen (whom you may recognize as Little-Finger from Game of Thrones) as the father and singer, Maria Doyle Kennedy as the mother.
My only gripes with the film are that the supporting characters don't really stand out as much as they should have. And the dialogue was very hard for me to understand at times, so much that I had to turn on subtitles for the most part. But other than that, I highly enjoyed everything else about this film.