Change Your Image
meadever
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Notzilla (2020)
A lot of fun
This movie is just so enjoyably bad. This is a film that knows it's cheap and leans into it hard. But for the kind of film they're making fun of, that cheapness works. The cartoony sexism, the bad puns, the cliche dialogue, it all works perfectly within the cheap sci-fi genre that inspired the movie. The blatantly low budget suit on the monster has got to be my personal favorite. His goofy eyes and obvious zipper are honestly hilarious when you see him moving around and doing things like playing football with a zeppelin. And every actor really gives their all to the stupidity and bless them for it. I would take this over something like "Epic Movie" or "Disaster Movie" any day. The filmmakers took their microscopic budget and ran with it in a way that is sure to please people like me that appreciate old-school fifties science fiction films that take themselves too seriously. Not for everyone, but definitely worth watching if you can appreciate something that is just utterly goofy by design.
Charlie's Angels (2019)
Let's be honest people.
This movie is objectively better than a lot of the male-centric action movies we've seen over the years. It's not a masterpiece of cinema but the writing, the fight scenes, the story, the cinematography, they're all on par with the testosterone fueled movies we're used to. You really gonna tell me the action here is worse than the shaky cam extravaganza that was Taken 3? That the overall story is more far-fetched than the last several Fast and Furious movies? That the dialogue pales in comparison to the poetry of Schwarzenegger? Not to disparage any of those people or films, but let's stop acting like this is somehow far beneath those popular cinematic entries. No, the real reason I think people hate on this movie is it is unapologetically feminist and female-centered. It doesn't try to mitigate or cater to men by playing down the abilities and intelligence of its heroes. It doesn't see them disavowing their womanhood and ignoring the advantages and/or disadvantages that come with that in order to make the audience comfortable. And it doesn't see them engaging in pointless titillation to lure in certain demographics. In short it's clearly not meant for the male gaze while existing within a genre that is typically geared towards men, and that's an unfortunately sure fire way to ensure backlash. Which is a shame because I have seen my share of action movies over the years, in fact I'm a huge fan of the genre, and this is on the higher end of the spectrum of my viewing. I like that I can see the fight scenes clearly. I like the thought that went into the various choices made. I like that there are real consequences to those choices. And I like that what I see is more grounded in reality (as much as any action movie can be). It's just a well-crafted flick that is worth seeing as long as you can check your sexism at the door and accept that just like men like to revel in their masculinity (which we allow them to do freely), women like to acknowledge their womanhood and what it means without having to resort to shades of androgyny or sexualization for acceptance. I do have to end with saying though that my favorite part of this whole movie is Kristen Stewart. She is a phenomenal comic relief at times and utterly likable. Her performance alone made this worthwhile viewing for me.
Is this movie perfect? No. Have other films like Wonder Woman done similar things to better effect? Yes. But it's certainly better than people have admitted, and the fact that the few "preachy" moments scattered throughout offend so many people is just proof that we need more movies like it.
Once Upon a Time in... Hollywood (2019)
Tarantino's Masterpiece
I will be the first to say, this movie is not for everyone. If you're not of a certain mind you will find it to be slow and dragging. But for those of us who appreciate 60's cinema and television and the Hollywood that produced it, this is an absolute masterpiece. By far one of the greatest movies about movies I have ever seen.
Let's start with the atmosphere and writing. Tarantino has written a love letter to a certain period in the history of Los Angeles and it is gorgeous. He perfectly captures the time when old Hollywood was ending and new Hollywood was taking over, rendering the last year of the 60's in glorious detail with his trademark humor. The story wonderfully portrays the growing pains that the industry experienced, in particular its performers as they tried to find their niche in an ever changing landscape. The narrative isn't focused so much on Sharon Tate and the Manson family, but on two friends who as they age find their once secure positions becoming ever more unstable. Many people were likely disappointed by this focus, but it honestly makes for a better film. Many shows and movies have focused on the Manson family and their crimes, this one focuses on two working joes who saw things from the outside, making it easier for the audience to connect with the time and place and see a new perspective on a well-known story. And the focus that is placed on Tate is far better than what we normally get, treating her not as merely a victim but as a woman who, while seen by many as a glamorous star, was a normal girl like so many others, making her career and life one day at a time. Her portrayal, while short and relatively quiet, is the most three-dimensional and sympathetic I have yet seen. This is partly due to the casting of the role, which like all the other roles in the film is letter perfect. Every character is casted ideally, in particular those based on real people.
This of course is helped by the acting, which is overall transcendent. Margot Robbie perfectly captures the quiet unassuming glamor that Sharon Tate possessed. Damon Herriman gave me chills with his recreation of Manson's nasally drawl. And Dakota Fanning gets beautifully lost in the part of Squeaky Fromme, inspiring the right amount of revulsion and apprehension. But by far the standouts are the two main stars of the film. Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt have never been so good. DiCaprio turns in what I think is his best performance to date, authentically rendering the whole gamut of emotions experienced by a man watching his stardom fade by the day. His tears are moving, his drunken outbursts laugh-inducing. He IS Rick Dalton, to the point I forget that there are no other movies I can go watch him in. And then there is Brad Pitt as Cliff Booth, the steady anchor to Dalton's instability. Pitt plays the stuntman with the practiced calm if someone who has taken his lumps and lived to tell about it, too content with what he has to care whether others approve. The only word for him here is badass. Badass in the way of Clint Eastwood or John Wayne, with the same weathered touch that makes you wonder what the rest of his story is. The two together, Booth and Dalton, DiCaprio and Pitt, are electric. The chemistry is genuine, smacking of a friendship spanning decades and running deep. Their interplay and their lives become more fun and fascinating to watch than any laser-focused portrayal of the Manson murders could ever be.
So if you enjoy movies about movies, and want a brilliant study of a friendship between two industry vets as they navigate a changing world, I urge you to watch this one. It truly is a glorious piece of cinema.
Stan & Ollie (2018)
Laurel and Hardy Live Again
Just when I thought I couldn't love John C Reilly anymore this film came along. The performances by Reilly and Steve Coogan are absolutely mesmerizing. Their portrayals of Stan and Ollie are incandescent and there was obviously a lot of time and love that went into the preparation for their roles. Coogan has absolutely nailed the unique facial expressions that are still associated with Laurel to this day, and Reilly perfectly captures Hardy's unique speech tones and cadence. I genuinely feel that the two legendary comedians are resurrected by these two performances. I found myself getting lost and forgetting where the movie stopped and history began. The rest of the elements of the film are well done, but the two leads are the standout, as they should be. This is one for the ages, just like the partnership it portrays.
Leatherface (2017)
Really Enjoyable
I seem to be in the minority on this, but I found this movie to be pretty good. That could be because I'm a die-hard TCM fan, but then again I found Texas Chainsaw 3D to be pretty weak. Overall, I think this is just one of the better entries we have gotten in the franchise in the last decade or so.
I went into it with some trepidation, because thanks to the way the trailer was cut and my experience of 2006's The Beginning, I was expecting a movie that focused on gore for the sake of gore, which I find hard to stomach sometimes. Luckily that is not what was presented. Don't get me wrong, there is still some good gore in there. There is certainly more overt blood and carnage than the original (which is not near as graphic as people seem to remember), it's just not the main focus of the movie, which is probably my favorite thing about it. It's obvious that the filmmakers were mostly concerned with telling a good origin story for this horror icon, and I think they succeeded.
What appeals to me most about this film is just how unexpected it is. What I mean by that is it would have been so easy to hit certain notes and deliver a movie that was enjoyable but predictable. They could have chosen to make Jed (Leatherface's real name) a violent kid with mental issues, which is what I think most of us expected him to be based on his later appearances. They could have chosen to make him a victim of his family who just kills because he is told to. In other words, they could have done what a few other entries in the series have already done. But they didn't. They portray Jed as a fairly sensitive kid who happens to be part of a blood-thirsty, backwoods family, and who ends up punished for their actions. At the end of the film, you come to the heartbreaking realization that under any other circumstances, Jed could have grown up to lead a normal life.
Part of the reason this works is the red herring they added of Bud, who, as a hulking, seemingly handicapped young man, spends much of the movie as the most likely candidate to become the skin tailor we know and love. When he dies in the third act, and it's revealed that handsome, kind Jackson was the missing Sawyer all along, it's a genuine shock. The idea that the protagonist you were rooting for the whole time becomes this monstrous being is tragic, and the surprise of the reveal just adds to that feeling.
The other thing that makes it work, at least for me, is how much sense it actually makes when all is said and done. Jed's separation from his family, his loss of a surrogate brother, and even his horrific facial injury all combine to explain how he gets to where he does later on. It explains his need to wear masks, his mental state, and his unceasing loyalty. It goes so much deeper than just a mentally impaired kid who doesn't know his own strength, and I love that depth.
I also have to applaud the filmmakers for the brave choice of not redeeming him at the end. When Elizabeth, his supposed love interest up until this point, is pleading for her life, a lot of movies would have gone the sentimental route and had Jed release her as one last act of humanity. But no, Jed slices her head off with his chainsaw and uses her as part of his first mask. It's a bold choice because it leaves what was for most of the movie a very likable character with no redemption. He is gone, and he isn't coming back.
I also have to applaud the acting, because without it, none of what I just listed would have worked. Lili Taylor is amazing as always, and Sam Strike really nails his emotional ups and downs as Jackson/Jed. Even Stephen Dorff turns in a good performance as the sheriff, making the character incredibly easy to sympathize with, but also hate.
The only real critique I have is that a little too much time is spent on that in-between period, when the three protagonists are being dragged around by their kidnappers. It just felt a little out of place for a TCM film and didn't necessarily add anything to overall story of Leatherface's origins.
Overall, I just thought this was a good film, better than it needed to be in my opinion.
Ghostbusters (2016)
Such Potential
Not gonna lie, the trailer for this got me hyped. Heck, the idea of female Ghostbusters was cool to me, but not like it was to everyone else. In my opinion, there was nothing wrong with the original; the stars were the guys who wrote it, so they had every right to cast who they wanted, including themselves. But that is neither here nor there. I went into this movie hopeful. I am a huge SNL fan, so seeing Kristen Wiig and Kate McKinnon in this had me excited. I also think Melissa McCarthy is pretty darn funny as well. With a roster like that, it had to be good right? Yeah, about that... To start off, I had no reason to dislike this film. I'm not biased either way, I don't have an agenda. But from a purely objective standpoint, this movie was not that great. It has some redeeming qualities, but overall it missed the mark for me. Let's start with the acting. Normally, I like Kristen Wiig. I loved her characters on SNL, and I loved her versatility in movies like "The Skeleton Twins". But this movie is a prime example of why her film career has been slowing down. Wiig has a great ability to play diverse characters, regardless how weird, and to OWN them. But it's an ability she has not been using lately. Her characters keep hitting the same note of being cute, awkward girls who can't seem to reach their goals, but can pass the time by making crude jokes. There is very little difference between her character in this film and the one she plays in "Bridesmaids". Eventually, doing the same schtick over and over gets old, especially when you KNOW she is capable of more. Sadly, the same goes for Melissa McCarthy. God bless her, her character is more diversified than Wiig's, but it still feels like an archetype we've seen a hundred times by now. It's just not memorable. These characters would work in another film, but not in "Ghostbusters". What made the original work was the diversity of the characters, and their individual, fleshed-out quirks. In this version, there aren't any quirks, the characters are just sort of awkward for the sake of being awkward. Luckily, Kate McKinnon comes in to show them how it's done. Without her, the movie would have been a lot worse. McKinnon's character is memorable and enjoyable, with a delightful weirdness that she seems to bask in. She so fully embodies her character that its easy to sit there and wish you could go have a beer with this person just to see what she would do next. She is by far the best part of the movie, adding a splash of color to an otherwise drab cast. Now to the writing. What we get is not really a BAD story, but it feels rushed. It doesn't feel as though there was a lot of effort put into it, aside from making sure that certain markers were hit that are present in other "Ghostbusters" films. Sadly the story is less about the final conflict and more about showing how the team comes together and starts doing what they do. But we didn't need that. We got a well-paced origin story with the original, and an examination of the difficulties with the sequel. So much of this movie did not need to be devoted to the working life of the team. You can show those things, of course, but not in such a way that you make the ultimate conflict of the whole movie feel tacked-on. But if I had to guess I would imagine things were paced the way they were to allow for the inevitable improvisation that would occur while filming. Again, rather than setting itself apart as something different, this film just falls into the same trap as a lot of comedies these days, where the script is a loose guideline, and a lot of the humor is simply added as things go along. Sometimes this works, and you get golden moments, but sometimes it's overdone, like destroying a whole mountain hoping to find one nugget of gold. The original was scripted and written well, and while there was surely some ad-libbing, it didn't dominate the script. It would have been so refreshing to see that thought-out considerate humor here, revived, but instead we get more of the lowest common denominator. It may have worked in other successful films, but those weren't the films they were supposed to be paying homage to. On another positive note, I will say that the effects were good. The ghosts were spooky without going full-on horror, and I only wish they would use something similar in a Scooby Doo outing in the future. The spirits we get to see are some of the most memorable parts of the whole thing. I may not remember all the jokes, but I remember the gorgeous/terrifying woman in the library. It was also great to see the original cast come back for cameos. I don't really consider it a stamp of approval for the movie, but I can't deny I got excited seeing Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd show up. It served as a sort of pick me up as I watched. What it all comes down to for me is what I wrote in the title; there was potential. You can see it as you watch. The actors are talented, even if they don't bring it to bear here, the effects are good, and the story could have worked if they had used more inspiration from the original and given it more structure. It's not the worst thing I've ever seen, but if there's something strange in my neighborhood, these aren't the Ghostbusters I'll be calling.
The Children's Hour (1961)
Remarkable
It took me a while to come to this film, as it's really not well-known or extensively talked about. I love old movies, and have for years, but my first exposure to this work didn't come until college, when I saw a scene from it performed in an acting class. I found the scene mesmerising, but didn't know that the play had been turned into a movie until a few years later, when I read about it in a biography of Audrey Hepburn. I was able to find it on a streaming service and immediately settled in to watch it. My thought having finally seen it is simply this; I cannot believe how little notice this movie seems to get. It's progressive, it's affecting, it's haunting. It's everything that makes a movie memorable. Audrey Hepburn, one of the most ethereal and chic actresses in history, is totally believable as the rather dowdy, down to earth, content co-headmistress at the boarding school where the story takes place. She's truly convincing as an every-woman. Just someone who is swept up in the gossip of a small town, but who, aside from that, would have a very ordinary life. Shirley MacLaine is just as believable as Martha, the more abrasive, restless of the two friends. She is able to subtly convey emotions like jealousy and anger, emotions that are all too easy to overplay on screen and stage. Both of them play their characters so well that it makes the relationship between them seem all the more authentic. You really do start to feel that these are two women who have been friends for years and have a close and comfortable repartee with one another. Of course, let's not overlook the supporting cast. The child actresses are all wonderful, not seeming to try too hard. Karen Balkin makes Mary, the girl who starts the rumours that drive the plot, all too easy to despise. The older actresses who play Martha's aunt and Mary's grandmother, also present a wonderful portrait of women from another generation, who are dealing with the issue at hand in the only ways they know how to. But the major standout in the supporting cast is James Garner as Karen's fiancé, Joe. I've seen his emotional depth in things like "The Notebook", but this role takes it to the next level. He really commits to what he is doing, and he just breaks your heart as you see him lose his veneer of calm collectedness when he realises that there are some things he simply can't control. The camera work is simple and basic, befitting a story like this one, and it's really the performers and story that make this a classic. It's a plot that isn't afraid to deal with a taboo issue in what was, for that time, a very frank way. It's one of those films that transports you, and it takes a couple of viewings of "Irma la Douce" or "Sabrina" afterward to remind you that these were characters, not real people. To me, the best films are the ones that create the world for you and flesh it out so well that it feels real, whether that be a fantastical world, or another version of the one we know. This film is a prime example of that being done right. It is still beautiful and relevant today, and should be counted as among the best performances of all involved.
Dark City (1998)
Better Than "The Matrix"
To be clear, I don't hate "The Matrix". It's just never been my cup of tea, and I thought it was somewhat overrated. This film, on the other hand, is not only an obvious influence on that later film, but in my opinion, superior. The story is truly imaginative, and I don't say that lightly. It's not something seen in every Summer blockbuster, which is refreshing. The fact that they use a film-noir aesthetic to tell that story makes it even better. The colours, the shots, the pacing, the design, it all combines to make one of the most perfect examples of that genre ever put on screen. Of course, there is the twist of the science-fiction elements, but as can be seen in "Blade Runner", these two concepts are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, they can work quite well together when done right. And they were done right here. The acting adds to the experience, as well. Rufus Sewell is wonderful, as he usually is, and Richard O'Brien was the most perfect choice for the character of Mr. Hand. But the character that really stuck out to me was Dr. Schreber, played to perfection by Kiefer Sutherland. He really steals the show with his Peter Lorre-esque portrayal of the good doctor. It proves Sutherland's acting range, as this role is worlds away from his confident turn as David in "The Lost Boys", as well as his role as Jack on "24". Each actor seems devoted to their part, and it makes this fantastical adventure all the more immersive. If I had to criticise anything, there are only two items of note. First, the costumes of the villains (Strangers, as they are called in the movie) are incredibly close to those of the Cenobites in "Hellraiser". It adds to the menace, but it is also mildly distracting. Second, the final few minutes are just this side of hackneyed. I won't give away the ending, but suffice to say that while it's not a bad ending at all, there are moments that feel slightly tacked-on. However, neither of these things is enough to take away from the overall quality of the film. It was obviously well thought out, and a lot of work went into it. It is sadly underrated for whatever reason, but if you haven't seen this movie, I strongly encourage you to do so as soon as possible. It was truly ahead of it's time, and its influence can be felt in films to this day. There is so much that this movie does right that make it a true joy to experience.
Aftermath (2017)
Gave Me Chills
I wanted to see this movie as soon as I saw the trailer, and I was not disappointed. I understand this movie may not be for everyone, but if you like powerful dramas, you need to see it. The pacing was spot on, and the cinematography was gorgeous and moving. But what really made the movie work was the acting. I didn't think Arnold Schwarzenegger could make me feel emotional with his performances, but I was wrong. He really nails this portrayal of a fundamentally good man trying to come to terms with his grief. And Scott McNairy is just as good, bringing a real pathos to his performance as a man who made one mistake that had disastrous unintended consequences. One of the best things about the film overall is how no one is the bad guy. Every character is multi-faceted and relatable. The switch from the viewpoint of one main character to that of the other makes great use of the parallel narrative and reminds you that there are two sides to every story. This isn't meant to be escapist or action-packed, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes we need a slice of life on the screen as opposed to a fantasy. This is even more true when the slice is presented this well.
Green Room (2015)
Awesome, does not deserve to be in the bargain bin
What do I even say about this movie? It blew me away. It's the best horror movie I've seen this year, and my only regret is how long it took me to see it. This is the movie that "Don't Breathe" was trying to be; a survival horror that was unpredictable, intense, and just the right amount of shocking. I know survival horror isn't everyone's cup of tea, but for those of you who like the genre, put this on your list. The gore is done in just the right amount, never too much, but enough to keep you watching and invested. It is well-written, and acted perfectly, which is to be expected from Patrick Stewart and the late Great Anton Yelchin. The filmmakers know how to build atmosphere, so before the action even starts, you are already sucked into the world of the film, and you care about the characters you are watching. It doesn't go for shock value, but has a very real feel to it that makes it get under your skin in the best way. I'm sad to say I found it in a bargain bin of Blu-ray Discs, which is a crying shame as it deserves to be celebrated more than that, but which turned out to be a stroke of luck for me. I got it home, watched it with the BF, and found my heart racing almost the entire time, despite the fact that I was safe in my bed in front of our small TV. I am so glad I purchased it, and I will be telling everyone I can to do the same. It's one of the better horror offerings of recent years and I can't recommend it highly enough.