Reviews

25 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Iron Claw (2023)
5/10
I've been worked, brother!
21 February 2024
Warning: Spoilers
As someone who has been a fan of professional wrestling for over a decade now, it really hurts that - even after a second viewing - I've come away from The Iron Claw not quite knowing how to feel about it. The first time I saw it I wanted to hate it, but the second time around I just realised what an unfortunate mess this movie really is. I knew going into The Iron Claw that it would make me sad. And it did. But not for the reasons that it should have.

The actual in-ring work, of which there is very little overall, is executed to a passable degree, but ultimately it contributes very little to the narrative, only cropping up every twenty minutes or so to hold the film together and signify a break in the story. Where the matches depicted in the film can to varying degrees in quality be watched today, they have this hazy, almost otherworldly quality to them which I can't quite decide whether I like or not; on the one hand I like it because it gives each match the feeling as though its being presented as how a fan in the audience would remember it, but on the other hand I dislike it because it gives the wresting scenes this uncanny valley vibe: I recognise what I'm watching because I've seen it before, yet it looks different all the same. However, the black and white prologue with Fritz wrestling was captivating and I honestly wished the segment had lasted longer; you ingeniously introduce Fritz von Erich to the audience as a heel and that never changes throughout the film. It just perfectly encapsulated the feel of that period of American professional wrestling and it's easily the high point of in-ring action for the movie.

I say that not with the intention of taking anything away from the subsequent wrestling scenes, but they do not work as well as the first one we see, and for one very simple reason. In Darren Aronofsky's 'The Wrestler,' Mickey Rourke, though playing a fictional character, managed to flawlessly impersonate an aging wrestler. I believe his performance in that movie. In the case of The Iron Claw what you have is different. You have actors pretending to be real characters in wrestling and it just looks so incredibly odd that it took me out of the moment for every wrestling scene. The biggest offenders by far though are the actors playing Harley Race and Ric Flair; the former looks nothing like his real-life counterpart and the latter couldn't be any further removed from Ric Flair if he tried, his performance made me cringe far too much for what would come next in the film after Kevin von Erich's title match with Flair. Nevertheless, to give credit where credit is due, Zac Efron evidently received the most training for these scenes since he is the only family member to be seen wrestling extensively - it was blatantly obvious that this was the case when the film omits Kerry von Erich's title victory and the viewer only hears about it from the match commentary being played non-diegetically over the backdrop of the family's ranch.

It may seem odd to critique such a minor part of what is at its core a family drama, but if you've watched wrestling for any length of time it's just something you can't help but pick up on watching this film. My main issue with the film is simply that it tries to accomplish too much. The film is evidently a passion project on the part of director Sean Durkin, but he really struggled when it came to quality control over the script - something he has been very vocal about in interviews - and it really does show when you're watching it. Aspects of the film like Doris's strained relationship with Fritz, or the family's relationship with religion, are only briefly touched upon or in some cases mentioned once and never again. The Iron Claw struggles most when it comes to maximising its minutes. You can't include every tiny detail about the von Erich's into a movie that's only just over two hours long, and it feels to me as though this could have easily been cut down to two hours and the movie would flow much better for it. Where the film does try to tell you everything it can about the grappling dynasty within the confines of its runtime, it became clear to me that this was a film made for a more general audience and not necessarily the wrestling fanbase who would inevitably have been intrigued by it regardless. It's painfully obvious that that's the case for numerous scenes throughout the film, for example Kevin's date with his future wife Pam; Kevin von Erich would never in a million years have exposed the business on a first date with a random woman whom he had never met. And that's because the exposition Kevin is spouting isn't intended for Pam's ears, it's meant for the members of the audience who have little to no knowledge of what pro-wrestling is. Another scene is the aftermath of Kerry's motorcycle crash. The wrestling fan in the audience knows that Kerry lost a foot as a result of that accident, but the general audience member does not, and the slow reveal of that scene relies on you not knowing what happened to Kerry. Structuring the film for a general audience and a wrestling audience is where this film goes wrong, since from here it takes too many liberties with the family's history. And that's not to mention the countless throwaway lines that would understandably fly over the casual fan's head, such as Fritz referencing Kerry's WWF partner "Hellwig," or Kevin confronting his father about why the books for WCCW don't add up. There are so many times when I found myself questioning who this movie was made for. It tried to appeal to wrestling fans and casual viewers alike, but this is clearly a movie only a casual viewer could like, since anyone familiar with American professional wrestling or more broadly the von Erichs just finds too many issues with this movie to enjoy it.

If I was rating The Iron Claw purely on the final twenty minutes it would be an undisputed masterpiece, which has the beautifully uplifting ending of showing Kevin on his ranch with his four children and thirteen great-grandchildren. It was a much-needed hope spot after what is a very bleak movie to sit through, so the inclusion of that photograph was greatly appreciated and I'm sure it brought a modicum of solace to every audience member regardless of how familiar with the von Erich family you are. The final twenty minutes of the film is an absolute rollercoaster ride of emotions for even the hardest of hearts, but it still doesn't make up for the failings of the rest of the film. The one thing I absolutely cannot look past, nor do I understand why this 'creative' choice was made, but there was no clear reason in my mind why Chris von Erich should have been entirely cut from this film. Merging his story with Kevin's other brothers just felt gross and disrespectful regardless of the excuse made for doing so. The story of the von Erich family is a story of excessive tragedy - a crucial moment of which is the suicide of a twenty-one-year-old man, who due to his asthma and brittle bone condition couldn't so much as take a bump in the ring without breaking bones, being in unimaginable agony, and feeling like a disappointment to the family name by failing to live up to his domineering father's image of him. Chris's story is arguably the most tragic of the entire family, so to try and lessen the tragedy of the von Erich's is borderline paradoxical, because either you tell the story of the von Erichs or you don't. It's a decision which is as hurtful as it is baffling, since I can't understand why you would include the seldom mentioned Jack Adkisson Jr. But have Chris von Erich completely absent from the narrative. It makes no logical sense to me since Durkin has spent years working on this script and all it amounts to is a surface level exploration of one of wrestling's biggest tragedies which realistically any wrestling documentary could tell in a better and more honest manner. The Iron Claw is missing far too much for it to be considered a complete story. As it stands, the film is a tragedy - one which is desperately lacking its fifth act.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doctor Who: Wild Blue Yonder (2023)
Season Unknown, Episode Unknown
5/10
Whovians are so starved of quality content that they'll watch the most mediocre of episodes and tell you it was an instant classic.
4 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Maybe I'm just setting my expectations for these 60th anniversary specials too high because I really struggled with this one. Purely because it was an incredibly distracting episode: the cold open was a meaningless distraction that served no purpose whatsoever, the visual effects were god awful even by Doctor Who standards that it completely and utterly sucked all of the tension out of the episode that the mood it was trying to convey just fell flat.

The most shocking part of the episode was the very much appreciated nod to The Timeless Children/Flux storylines, but in that same vein this episode was reminiscent of something from Chibnall's tenure as the showrunner. By which I mean this episode was potentially too ambitious for its own good; horror and suspense in Doctor Who is best done simply as exemplified by Blink, Midnight, and Heaven Sent. This episode's focus on the visual side of horror is where it was let down; I'd be amazed if anyone found this scary because all I did was groan. Though the biggest groan came from another fake out death for Donna. This is for me verging into Clara territory now, the more you tease her death the less it'll mean when it actually happens and if it doesn't happen then you've just wasted everybody's time. Which is particularly aggravating because the idea of the Doctor being unaware he left Donna to die because he saved the wrong one is a much more intriguing idea then the end result of this episode.

I've gone into this new era with an open mind but the bloom is already fading off of the rose. The next episode really has to be something special because from a narrative perspective these two episodes have not been what this show deserved for an anniversary of this magnitude.
28 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw X (2023)
8/10
Kevin Greutert wasn't playing games!
1 October 2023
Warning: Spoilers
As a longtime fan of this series, one of the things I have always wanted to see is how Jigsaw would fair in one of his own traps... and this movie gave that to me.

I should preface this by saying that I was always going to like this movie to a degree since it is the first SAW film I was old enough to see in a cinema - Spiral would have proved the exception here but a certain global event prevented me from seeing that. I was so excited about this movie that despite the fact I booked my ticket online, I asked one very bemused usher if I could have the physical ticket stub for a keepsake. Even seeing the return of Lionsgate's red gears made me giddy with excitement for what was to come. So, in case the penny has not dropped for you yet... I really love these movies.

That being said, this is probably the only entry in the series (excluding the Jigsaw and Spiral spin-offs) that doesn't feel like a typical SAW movie even though it's sandwiched between the first and second films. Without getting into the content of it, it's worth mentioning that SAW X is one helluva redemption movie for its director Kevin Greutert. With James Wan and David Hackl each directing one Saw movie apiece, you always got the impression that Darren Lynn Bousman was the safe pair of hands for any future films considering he has (for better or worse) directed the most entries in the series. However, for me, the man most familiar with an editing suite proves to be the most interesting of SAW's many directors in my opinion. He is a unique case since he has directed one of the most beloved entries in SAW VI and one of the most loathed entries in the franchise in the lacklustre Saw VII... 3D... Pink Blood Bonanza... Final Chapter, or whatever it's called today. But in the case of SAW X, if nothing else, it thoroughly convinced me that Kevin Greutert is more than capable of directing a bloody good SAW movie. It almost makes me wish that there hadn't been a last-minute change to 3D and heavy studio involvement with the seventh entry since after seeing this movie, I think he could done a much better job of "finishing" the story had he not been hindered in the manner that he was.

But make no mistake this is not your typical SAW movie and it certainly was not what I was expecting it to be. Although it's the longest entry into the franchise it absolutely flew by; when I heard the start of Charlie Clouser's staple Zepp overture I couldn't quite believe it was all wrapping up so soon. And while it may not have any stakes or subplots or twists, it isn't the smartest or the goriest film the franchise has to offer, but it's undeniably gripping as your investment in the characters carries you through it, and there are more than enough elements from the other films in this movie to satisfy the more gorehound fans amongst the audience since this film does have some of the most wicked and sadistic traps yet! With the bone marrow trap being my personal favourite...

While SAW X obviously isn't the only horror movie to come out this year, it is however one of the few character-based horror movies of the past few years that makes a valiant attempt to subvert the torture porn genre (and the wider genre itself) by placing our usual antagonist in the position of the protagonist, and so due to the film's narrative what we have instead of the usual run of the mill SAW movie is an ode to the numerous pulp-style revenge movies of the 1970s and 80s. We see more of John Kramer in this movie than we have in any other because what this film seeks to do is deconstruct his character, his message, his work and his disciples. Everything about Kramer and Jigsaw is analysed to the nth degree in this beautiful blood bath of a character study. When I initially saw the teaser and behind-the-scenes schematics of the eye vacuum trap, I went into this movie expecting it to be the opening scene - as is usually the case for these movies.

Instead, it opens with John Kramer "trapped" in an MRI machine as his cancer worsens. We even get to see Kramer go through the film's iconic flash-style editing! This film is his own metaphorical test as every fibre of his being is challenged by his experiences here. So, what I thought was due to be the opening scene was actually used to illustrate how Jigsaw sees the world and the people in it, specifically those he considers unworthy. I couldn't help but find it fascinating! Ten movies in and we finally see the world for how John Kramer sees it.

SAW X is intriguing but also deeply unsettling and that does come down to Tobin Bell's performance; he seamlessly slips back into his most iconic role and I couldn't possibly have any more respect for the man, appearing in a movie of this sort now that he's in his eighties. In a sense Bell's advanced age acts in John Kramer's favour; we know he's dying of cancer and even though somewhat humorously he looks worse here than he does in SAW II, you really can't help but feel for him.

I was initially very sceptical about the decision to place SAW X between SAW and SAW II but with the power of hindsight knowing what happens to Kramer and his followers, it makes one man's desire to cling onto his own life all the more impactful. This franchise has always had its own internal logic over determining whether Jigsaw is a hero, a villain, or somewhere in between, but his actions in the film as its protagonist mean you are very much intended to side with him; and for the most part if not all of the film I think I did. This works so well largely because SAW X taps into a certain potential that previous entries have only briefly touched upon or hinted at - the people Jigsaw has placed in his game are all (albeit to varying degrees) bad people. You do not feel sympathy for Dr. Pederson or Paker Sears as you did for Dr. Gordon and Adam Stanheit. These people genuinely did something wrong, and it's arguably the only time in this series that Kramer's actions have been vindicated and have an air of righteousness to them. When John, Amanda and their newly blood-baptised warrior, emerge from the villa at the end of the film, quite literally walking off into the sunset, it feels as out of place as the film's title card yet it's important to remember this isn't a typical SAW movie, it's a spiritual ending for Jigsaw and Amanda. This movie did what no movie could for Kramer, and what one post-credit scene attempted to do for Amanda - it humanised them.

And so, one of the more crucial aspects of the film that I am quite a lover of is that it gives me a near-perfect trilogy of films with SAW, SAW X, and SAW II. It easily feels as though these three films give you all the story that you need and could possibly want. I for one honestly cannot wait to watch all three films in this manner to see how well they mesh. Though the mid-credit scene does slightly contradict this since all roads lead back to the bathroom and another sequel is more than likely, I am happy to have these three films in isolation... and it was worth it alone to see Costas Mandylor... I did miss my Hoffman and I certainly would not complain about getting to see him again. However I can't help but feel that the beauty of this film is skin deep and that overall it gives you as the audience member your own free will to decide the ending of the story for yourself; you can choose the trilogy route or even the whole franchise route and have a series of traps and potential successors, or, depending on whether you feel that Kramer like the film's director deserves his own redemption arc, you can have the bittersweet ending of John giving up his work after his most person game ever and riding off into the sunset in true revenge-hero fashion. I certainly know which one I prefer...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Character based horror for the win!
12 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Looking back it's strange to think that the Insidious franchise ever went in a direction without the Lamberts. Their departure following the second instalment and their subsequent return in The Red Door has an equal amount of pros and cons to it. While the franchise undeniably wavered in their absence, seeing the family together once more surrounding the grave of Lorraine Lambert, we bear witness to both what the franchise has been missing for the past two entries in the series, but it also shows us how much the family has grown. No sooner are they a cohesive unit joined together in death, they become a disjointed family riddled with grief and loathing for each other. We haven't seen or heard anything of the Lamberts for the past nine (in universe years) but the family we see at the start of The Red Door is not the same family we saw at the end of Chapter Two.

It may seem cynical of me - but hear me out - I'm glad Josh and Renai divorced, I'm glad Dalton is a troubled introvert, and I'm glad that the two other Lambert children are neglected and forgotten. It was admittedly shocking to discover that the Lambert's were divorced, purely because I didn't think it was something this movie would be brave enough to do. It's a breath of fresh air to have a family in a horror franchise five entries deep refusing to play happy families after everything they've experienced. They didn't grow from their experiences, they didn't become strong as a result of them: it broke them.

It's so rare to see a character based horror movie appear so late in a franchise that has relied on shock tactics, but in my opinion there's not enough character based horror in modern scary movies. I liked The Red Door for similar reasons as to why I enjoyed Halloween Ends. The characters are handled in a realistic way that feels real. You didn't have to rely on jump-scares to frighten me, you just had to make me care for the characters and feel something for them. The performances of the movie are easily the strongest aspect of the film, they're believable all throughout and the Lambert's really do feel like a fractured family; they didn't get the fairy tale ending Chapter Two promised them; this movie isn't only good but it retroactively exalts the ending of the second film because now we're seeing the consequences of the experiences endured by the Lamberts. They were never going to be fine and the years have been anything but kind to them.

Despite what the ending of Chapter Two would tell us, Dalton didn't grow up to be a child prodigy living in ignorance of his past - tip toeing thru' the tulips as Tiny Tim would want - he grew up to be a 20-something who's afraid of the dark and can't sleep without the aid of a night light. That's shattering, not to mention embarrassing for him. If your heart doesn't bleed for Dalton in that moment then perhaps this movie isn't for you. Seeing the 20-something Dalton trapped in chains deep in the Further perfectly illustrates what his "gift" of astral-projection has meant for him and his family; they are literally and figuratively shackled to the trauma of their past. Despite all attempts to suppress their memories, avoiding the past has proved impossible.

Generational trauma takes two forms in this film. You have the literal with the often unseen Renai desperately trying to hold what remains of her family together, while harbouring the truth of their pain a secret from everyone, now that her one and only confidant, her mother-in-law (Lorraine) is dead. And then you have the allegory of generational trauma as embodied by the Red-Faced Demon who has plagued three generations of the same family. I loved what this movie did with that character as it finally feels as though it has some sort of motivation, or more horrifyingly that I actually understand why it's doing what it is. The true horror of The Red Door is that the Red-Faced Demon has been lurking in The Further waiting for the Lamberts all these years. When Josh hears Carl's name at his mother's funeral we hear the all too familiar clicking that belongs to that Demon. That sound isn't there for us; it's there for Josh. The Demon is still there pining to be noticed, to remind the Lambert family it's still waiting for them. The Demon rather anthropomorphically acts as a stalker. When we see it's lair for the first time since the First Chapter, it's changed. It's become a museum dedicated to Dalton's life, almost like a shrine. Knowing it has still been watching them in the nine years where we have not, you can only imagine the glee it would have felt when - sniffing on all fours like a beast - it sensed that Dalton had returned to The Further after the word 'further' itself spoken by his art teacher acts as trigger word unleashing all of his buried memories.

For me, this is the best entry in the series. The script is well crafted, the cast does a perfect job of seamlessly returning to characters they haven't played in years, while there's a delightful supporting performance from Sinclair Daniel whose optimism and care was like a lantern lighting up the darkness of The Further. But most importantly this film's focus on drama while the scares take a back seat, meant the whole film feels so real. It's very rare for a horror film to have touching moments in it, but the final embrace of Josh and Dalton finally feels like a resolution and I have more hope that their family can now move on than I did at the end of Chapter Two. Not to mention the criminally underused Lin Shaye returning at the end as Elise projects herself to offer some comfort to Josh in an unspoken act of forgiveness for his killing her while possessed by The Bride in Black. While there is the tease that the Red-Faced Demon may still live supressed within The Further itself, I certainly wouldn't complain if things ended here. It would be beautifully fitting if Patrick Wilson's directorial debut was a farewell to one of his most familiar characters and a family who may finally be able to move on from their past.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Demeter sails familiar waters and find fresh blood!
2 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I have a strange relationship with Dracula adaptations; there remains in me the love of vampires that I had from quite a young age, which has mixed with the cynicism of a 21 year old that has seen so many different variations of vampire movies, not even counting adaptations of Stoker's novel, that I do feel quite burnt out in regards to my bloodsucking friends. But when I heard about The Last Voyage of the Demeter months before its release, I couldn't have been more excited.

Despite my love for all things vampiric, I have to admit that I'm not the biggest fan of Stoker's novel. Compared to contemporary Gothic novels I found Dracula to be (pun intended) very dry; the sections of the book dedicated to Harker's arrival at Castle Dracula up until the eponymous Count arrives in England are undeniable page turners. Yet, after that, the whole story loses it's magic, there's nothing but endless blood transfusions, an overuse of the word laconic, and I found myself completely dismissive of the rest of the story up until Dracula's grisly demise. So, since I'm not a huge lover of the book, I do like it when Dracula adaptations flip the script and do their own thing like Hammer's the Horror of Dracula, or even when writer's pick and choose what parts of the bood to adapt - which is something I thought was expertly done by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat in their 2020 Dracula mini-series. Needless to say, when I found out that an entire movie was being dedicated to a single section of Stoker's novel - a part which I really enjoy - I was (once again pun intended) onboard, and couldn't wait to see how it was going to turn out.

And what I saw, I wasn't disappointed by. While it does have some pacing issues, with so much happening in the first hour, it could have done with being about ten to fifteen minutes shorter. It can also feel slightly stagey at times when for no apparent reason certain characters disappear in one scene (not due to the presence of any malevolent force on board!) only to pop up later in another scene as either a deus ex machina or simply for no reason whatsoever with seemingly no explanation as to where they went. That being said these are my only issues with the film and they are very minor at that since they in no way massively took away from my enjoyment of the film, it was just a mild head scratch moment as opposed to genuine frustration at what I was seeing. Criticisms aside, the more I've thought about this movie since I saw it, I really do like it, purely because so many of its elements work well together. The director of the movie, André Øvredal, describes the film best when he likened the movie to Ridley Scott's Alien: instead of a Xenomorph on the Nostromo we're given Count Dracula on the Demeter.

There is a surprising amount of tension to the movie despite its predictable ending courtesy of the title, but Øvredal's stellar job of replicating the best parts of Alien entices you into the narrative that you can't help but push the tragic fate of the Demeter's crew to the back of you mind. You rarely see Dracula completely, so that when you do it feels special and the less is more approach is handled really well; and though he seldom speaks and shows any human attributes, Dracula is a clever beast and it really does feel like an animal picking off its prey one by one. It's a testament to the performance of Javier Botet that his Dracula doesn't appear remotely human - undead or otherwise. There are also homages to other horror movies like Romero's Night of the Living Dead as when the crew starts to thin there are moments when it feels as though they're all going to turn on each other - something which is conveyed fairly convincing by its solid cast which has some strong performances from the (human) leads of Liam Cunningham, David Dastmalchian, and Corey Hawkins. In that sense, we have a bottle set with a motley crew cast who all fulfill certain character types which leaves 'Demeter' as this strange combination of a modern horror film that's clearly inspired by Alien and yet somehow feels like a Hammer Horror with a sizeable budget. And I do mean that as a compliment!

By the time the end credits rolled by I was already wanting more from this, since the movie has such a killer ending that it feels like I was left hanging in the best way possible: as Dracula continues to consume blood he starts to take on a more human form in the London fog, with our new Van Helsing archetype, Clemens, hot on his trail; all while we're treated to Bear McCreary's Voyage Overture playing over the credits - a musical piece which perfectly utilises the warning knock of the Demeter and incorporates it into the movie's main theme.

Overall, as Dracula adaptations go, the 'Demeter' sails down a familiar path while still making the story feel fresh and fun, and for my money you can't go wrong with this as a Dracula adaptation and I'd be very disappointed if a sequel didn't materialise. I would gladly sit through another movie of this kind or one where Clemens has to hunt Dracula down before he drinks so much blood that he becomes indistinguishable from every other Londoner...

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go and give Matt Reeves a call to tell him how I think Man-Bat would make a great villain for a future Batman movie!
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
"It was all going fine 'till he chopped off all his fingers."
2 January 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The Banshees of Inisherin wonderfully reunites the trio of McDonagh, Gleeson and Farrell, for a film that's not only deeply funny, deeply sad and disturbing, but most importantly one that knows its audience. By the latter specifically I mean that for those who enjoyed In Bruges (2008) - and I refer to myself in this generalisation - you feel for Farrell's character as you along with him are caught off guard and share in his despair at the loss of his friendship because we've seen the chemistry that both leads have, how - ultimately - they work as friends. It's a cleverly constructed film in that sense (one that I feel I can say wouldn't be effective without Gleeson and Farrell), you laugh when you're supposed to laugh and you feel when you're supposed to feel.

The dialogue is beautiful and instantly quotable, the setting is idyllic in how beautifully shot it is, the costuming - especially Gleeson's worn out spaghetti western-esque lawman getup is a delight to watch him strut around in - with each piece suiting each character aptly, the musical score which acts as a bitter sweet death nell that things aren't going to be fine is the cherry on top. And while admittedly the symbolism and foreshadowing isn't always perfect, this is a film that stands on its cast, acting and dialogue and the three easily compensate for the films flaws as they make this picture stand on its own.

While Gleeson and Farrell unsurprisingly steal the show, the supporting cast cannot be understated. The quippy barman, the dodgy copper and the busy body old biddies perfectly construct a believable Irish locale - even if the location shooting wasn't a factor - the setting is believable and it really helps with the doom and gloom that essentially every member of the island feels - whether they choose to acknowledge it or not. The best of the supporting cast is by far Barry Keoghan - having only briefly been introduced to this young actor through his agonisingly short portrayal of the Joker in Matt Reeves's The Batman earlier this year I was delighted to finally see him act and I wasn't disappointed in the slightest. His character is the most endearing aspect of the film, the hopelessness that all residents feel is exemplified in his character despite his efforts to drown it out with Poitín and the hopes for love. Dominic is by far the most upbeat character you'll find on Inisherin yet is arguably also the saddest; despite the main plot line I found myself feeling for him the most, the issues he faces are bigger than the petty squabbles of Pádraic and Colm, and significantly, one that has the biggest consequence: a death foreshadowed by the island's lone banshee Mrs. McCormick. There is something to be said for real problems being overlooked selfishly by everyone around you - since your own problems however big or small are always more important to you personally. Everyone on the island is a victim of circumstance but none more so than the film's tragedy case. You just want to reach through the screen and give him a hug, or keep him as a pet. But I'm willing to bet the latter may be just me.

The main plot does feel like a joke that goes too far between two very bored friends who can't get past the mundanity of their lives - one more so than the other of course. There is a danger to deviating from the comfort of your life and spicing things up. Who's really in the wrong out of Pádraic and Colm? For me it was hard to tell. Even after lost fingers, dead donkeys, and burnt down houses, when the two part on the beach and Colm thanks Pádraic for looking after his dog, there's the unmistakable hint of a smile on his face and the feeling for the viewer that everything might just go back to normal tomorrow.

The kicker is we never find out what the resolution of this sick joke is. In that sense the joke is on us. Would we be surprised if they became friends again after this? I don't think so. Where do you go from here if you remain enemies? Only those two nutters would know. But either option is fun and enticing, but ultimately, the answer is as nihilistically delightful as the film: it doesn't matter. Nothing really does.

I enjoyed every second of this film and wish I had been able to come around to it sooner. I feel right now that this'll be the last film released in 2022 that I'll really enjoy and I'm more than okay with that. If this is the last time this trio get together then what a film to go out on. I can happily say in future I'll be making significantly more visits to Inisherin than Bruges.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
No one expects the Spanish Inq... Sky People
17 December 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Considering that I am a deeply cynical and miserable person, I was reasonably impressed by Avatar 2 due to my inability to hate it entirely, despite my best efforts of course.

I did not like the first Avatar movie. It felt far too much like a gimmick to me. And while the same can be said for the sequel which feels more like a soft reboot than anything else largely due to the pointless recap that consists as the film's first act, it's entirely different from the first in certain respects. They do say that history repeats itself and I think it's interesting if not impressive that Cameron has somehow found a way of resurrecting the "Cinema of Attractions," for a modern audience.

That's exactly what these films are to me; light shows at the circus that are fairly inoffensive with no real meaning behind them; they'll entertain you while you're looking right at them but they won't change you as a person regardless of how often you view them. The only real difference is this Kinetoscope gimmick actually lasts for over three hours instead of a couple of seconds.

The biggest detractor of this film for me - which is the same issue I had with the first and that I will undoubtedly have with the sequels - is that this is not cinema. I completely understand that this is one man's passion project but my sitting down and watching a three hour long cutscene for a video game that is basically any picture you can find on the current generation of consoles, I find myself feeling disjointed from what I'm watching, and when you're watching something that's been computer generated (in other words something that's not there! - unreal - ) the verisimilitude is broken for me and I find it very hard to engage with it.

That being said I did derive some enjoyment from this film irregardless of why I dislike this style of filmmaking. It is a marked improvement on the first even though the majority of the plot exists unnecessarily so the final battle can happen and Cameron gets to recreate the ending of Titanic (1997) on Pandora. You only really need to see the last half an hour of this movie because it's all that matters since the confrontation between Sully and Quaritch could have easily happened at the end of the first movie. It felt unnecessary to structure a whole movie around this since by the time the credits rolled, whether you got something out of the 'pretty pictures' or not, there was no development. The film ends in exactly the same fashion as the first. Nothing has changed.

I don't care whether you like this or not, for a movie that many people have waited over a decade for, I don't think I'm being ignorant to say I expected more than a damp retread of the original. There was nothing new, nothing interesting, it just looked a bit more polished, yet this time round you've actually managed to waste the cast; Stephen Lang is once again the best part of an Avatar movie which is a testament to his abilities since you never see him physically in his human form; Sigourney Weaver is wasted in a dream sequence; and you never even see Sam Worthington. I'm not the biggest fan of the latter but it definitely feels as though he's been shafted.

While there's certainly room to argue the effects make up for the film's drawbacks, what's hard to ignore is that the film's cinematography in particular suffers from the technology being used; there was only a handful of shots in the film that stuck out as being particularly gorgeous - which for a film as long as this one is, is quite disappointing. Unsurprisingly, however, most of these noteworthy shots occur during the final battle: there is a beautiful shot of Quartrich's avatar staring at the devastation of the Demonship, and a wonderful homage to Apocalypse Now (1979) as Jake Sully emerges from the water (eyes first) before confronting Quartrich.

Cameron's distinct style is present in this film but it's so subtle that it's easy to miss. There is a great filmmaker behind the camera but he just bombards you for three hours with indistinguishable characters you don't care about, a plot you're already familiar with and it's just hard to justify this movie existing because it's just not unique enough from the first one to exist and or spawn more than one additional sequel. The Avatar films for me exist in a weird quantum realm where if you somehow manage to clip through the greater pictures of Cameron's filmography you end up in the Blue Hell of Pandora.

And even then the visuals were pretty hit or miss for me; the Na'vi look awful in daylight, and while it could have been my investment in the final act, the Na'vi clearly look better in darkness and there was definitely additional detail added during the final confrontation that makes it the only watchable part of the movie for me - despite the fact it feels like the crescendo the first movie was building to.

I have no interest in rewatching Avatar (2009) and to be truthful I can't say I'll come back to The Way of Water, nevertheless, whether I saw the movie on TV or just felt like going out of my way for it, I would 100% watch that final act again, because it just is that good - I only wish I could say the same for the rest of the film and it does worry me about the content of future movies since I really can't see what they're going to do in future if Cameron remains determined to keep making these films of epic length.

The film is definitely flawed (which I considerately will put down to the fact that such a large period of time has elapsed between these two films) and the style doesn't really make up for it, but the appeal of limited character development in the final act does make this film superior to the first and I'm sure the general consensus will lap up this movie. But it's not for me brother, and I'm more or less okay with that, though I will resent being dragged by my flatmates to watch further Avatar movies.

I cannot fathom what anyone would have wanted from an Avatar sequel and I don't seem particularly nostalgic for 2009 but for people who are actually fans of the original I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Nevertheless, to me, this was just another sideshow attraction that I've already largely forgotten about.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hellraiser (2022)
5/10
Please... she's already dead.
11 December 2022
The idea of rebooting Hellraiser in 2022 is a bit like injecting botox into a corpse; you can't quite understand what you're meant to get out of it and it's clearly not going to do the worn out corpse any good yet you still persist and want this knackered franchise to be something more than it ever really was in the first place.

I was initially quite sceptical when I heard about this project (more so when I found out it was intended to be a film and not a series) mainly because the Hellraiser franchise is characterised by two things: ludicrously diminishing returns in the form of its sequels and Doug Bradley performing as the Lead Cenobite. I'm not the biggest enthusiast for this series of movies having only gone as far as to watch three of them and only enjoying them somewhat, with Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) proving to be my favourite of the first three. I chose to end the series on a reasonable high and not venture into the rabbit hole of sequels. That being said, I had no interest in watching another Hellraiser movie (especially one without Doug Bradley - who was proving to be the only redeeming feature of these films) yet this reboot proved too hard to resist; whether that was the idea of a more true to text Pinhead or the gambler's fallacy that all horror fans are imbued with, I can't quite tell, either way I couldn't keep putting this one off for too long.

Hellraiser (2022) is on par with either of the first three movies in the original series, in other words, it's nothing special; there are a few really interesting plot points, some nod of approval inducing effects and a rather intriguing antagonist.

This movie succeeded in that it wasn't as bad as most of the latter entries in the original series, but it simultaneously failed to be anything other than dull since it didn't surpass any of the first three movies - and I'm not the biggest fan of those three films so I don't think I was setting myself a really high bar. It's hard to think of this movie as being any better than its predecessors since it doesn't quite do anything new or unique enough to justify it's existence. Furthermore, the use of CGI over practical effects definitely left me disinterested here since I found that to be one of the stronger suits of the originals. There are also some missed opportunities with the story since the idea of a junkie perceiving their interactions with the Cenobites as drug induced hallucinations is a really fun idea that the film could play with but no sooner is it introduced is it forgotten, and the story only feels like it exists to justify moving the film forward. It never manages to come across as entirely organic.

It is a rather frustrating watch since the story I was most interested in was Roland Voight's. Goran Vismijc's performance is by far the best in this film as he totally owns every scene he was in and whenever he acted alongside Jamie Clayton's Priest the film's best scenes can be found as everything is essentially built around those two characters. His suffering feels real and even though he's not a good person you do feel for him and when he's battling The Priest you want him to triumph. But then the gang of stereotypes get involved and interject themselves into what could have been a good story of the sadistic art collector paying for his vices while daring to once again summon the uber sadistic demons of deviance.

I'm not a fan of having a gang of characters all being the lead of a horror movie, especially when their characters are barely one dimensional. The lead (played by Odessa A'Zion) is entirely flat, looking like she's just stepped off of the set of an 80s fitness video while her brother and his boyfriend are a strange caricature of a gay couple who literally read poetry to each other in bed and barely feel real, while you have the random character of the roommate who for some reason follows these three around and of course you have the white trash boyfriend who is in for some reason in league with one of the antagonists to round of the bunch. Each of these characters is beyond frustrating and the lifeless lines of dialogue they deliver just drag the film down and it's so disappointing since when you remove them from the equation the scenes you're left with really stand out and if you'd just committed to a movie based around the collector you could have really had something distinct not just for the series but the modern horror movie format in general. With one lone lead who walks the fine line between protagonist and antagonist hung up against insurmountable odds.

Ultimately, you were brave enough to try and reboot Hellraiser but you didn't have the courage to try and make it new and different so sadly you've just bottled it.

Even though the Hellraiser series is dominated by sequels I'd be quite surprised if this movie spawned one - largely because the six configurations of the puzzle box (while a mildly effective if unnecessary edition to the canon) runs the risk of making a sequel feel too formulaic, however, the tease of Roland's evolution of a cenobite could lead to something so much more, most importantly something new and different which (one only hopes) could reanimate this sad corpse of a series.

If this film manages to lead to a sequel or a series of films centred around the Roland character then I could probably look past some of the flaws of this movie and have some hope for this series. But if that's not the case, as it currently seems, then this was just another Hellraiser sequel destined to be forgotten as the one that was different from the others but not good enough to exalt itself from the other sequels and the stigma of a series that went stale a very very long time ago.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Jeepers Creepers: Preterm Birth
5 October 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I mean... wow. I'm incredibly shortsighted, so when i took my glasses off halfway through the movie, the visuals drastically improved. But still! It's evident that this film was so over-budget, that it's amazing there even is a 'watchable' finished product. The visuals are never perfect, but when they're okay it's forgivable, but when they're bad... it looks almost like a Creeper sequel to "Who Killed Captain Alex?" It's so disappointing seeing the visual quality of a movie drop like that; it makes it hard to immerse yourself into the world it attempts to create and completely saps any enthusiasm you'd have for a possible sequel - which is heavily alluded to in the film's climax.

It's not an inherently bad film, it's just a disappointing one, since it didn't have the budget to succeed, which is a clear indication that the executives had no faith in this whatsoever, and so what you're left with is... this. And i highly doubt that when enough people see this it'll get a sequel.

That aside, it's not awful in terms of plot. I liked the bait and switch at the beginning by recreating the events of the first movie as an episode of a documentary, and treating the Creeper as an urban legend with the Salva films being movies that exist in the universe of Reborn. There are some solid ideas in this but it's hard to get genuinely interested in it.

And even though Salva had nothing to do with this movie, there's still an obligatory pissing scene and weird sexual chemistry between the two leads, so it does very much feel like a Jeepers movie, but a very, very low budget one at that.

You may as well watch it if you sat through the third movie, but if you did, i wouldn't expect anything different from what you got with that: a mildly intriguing story, dodgy visuals, and promised storylines that won't go anywhere.

Jeepers Creepers: Reborn... oh, what could have been! I hope this film silently fades into obscurity - as I'm sure it will - and in a few years or so it gets picked up by a big studio with a solid budget that gives this series the hard reboot it definitely needs.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hulk (2003)
6/10
Better Than You Remember!
4 October 2022
I was pleasantly surprised how well this has held up over time. It certainly has it's drawbacks, but in treating the character of the Hulk as a King Kong-esque spectacle, Ang Lee's slow burn of a movie is really quite effective.

The drawbacks to the film are pretty obvious however, the comic book editing style has never transferred well onto the screen and it can be really quite distracting at times but if you can stomach the style of Raimi's first Spider-Man movie then you'll probably be fine with this. I have no words for the dogs though... that's just stupid. The only major flaw of the movie is sadly the casting. With the exception of Nick Nolte, every character feels miscast. Jennifer Connelly is wasted in this film, in the same way that Liv Tyler was in her respective movie (neither of which passes the Bechdel test). As for Eric Bana, I'm not overly familiar with his work, but I'm not a fan of him in this. You root for the Hulk in the film, or rather you're just waiting for him to appear since Bana lacks both the intensity of a Billy Bixby or an Edward Norton, and the likeable nature of a Mark Ruffalo.

So, the appeal of this film isn't the acting or the style, but there are some good action scenes and the pacing does a great job of laying out the story and keeping you intrigued.

It's far from perfect, and it does exist as an oddity of the early 2000s, but since the special effects largely hold up very well, it's not unbearable and is worth a watch if you've somehow gone through every other piece of Marvel media.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Munsters (2022)
5/10
Torn right down the middle...
27 September 2022
I'll be honest, the second i saw the obviously out of place title card - my heart sank a little. I interpreted it as a sign of things to come, and i wasn't entirely wrong.

While i did enjoy some aspects of this film, it felt so tonally off, and it wasn't helped by certain cinematic choices. It feels like it tries too hard with the visual humour when the strong suit of The Munsters has always been subtle humour with an alternate take on modern life, but Rob Zombie's choice to structure the film as a cartoon come to life just feels like an unnecessary step to take since you're dealing with what're essentially Universal horror monsters. The transitions are incredibly jarring and they really take you out of the moment, and since they're so frequently spaced throughout the film and get worse with each one it really feels like the film never even has a chance to get going. Which is only made worse but the strange pacing of the plot and and a very sudden ending that comes out of nowhere.

As for the cinematic choices, not concerning transitions, the green lighting is so disheartening. It's unbelievably overused and it takes so much away from some of the more beautifully detailed sets. I can't really think of why it's used so much, other than perhaps as an homage to the green skin of the black and white characters that was always hinted to in the sixties show, but when you have actors caked in colourful makeup the lighting just comes across as another unnecessary presentation choice.

It's not always pleasant to look at and the jokes don't always land, but it does have it's enjoyable moments - such as Richard Brake's overly campy performance channelling Vincent Price from his B movie performances in the Roger Corman 'Poe' movies - yet it's hard to justify the film's existence on that basis since it doesn't have much to offer fans of the source material, and i honestly can't see this depiction of the characters appealing to a new generation of fans.

There have been numerous attempts to reboot this series since the 1960s (and not to doom this movie to failure just yet), but none of them have been successful in their attempt at rebooting the property. However, it still feels as though it has been done better, and on more than one occasion. In 1995, Fox's Halloween TV special "Here Come the Munsters," was a delightful reiteration of The Munsters which provided the family an origin and was effective in spawning another sequel and being as close to the original series as you could get. And more recently the Halloween special in 2012, "Mockingbird Lane," provided the family with a much darker edge that they desperately needed to settle into a new century, and sadly this reboot did fail. But in comparison - especially as Tim Burton's "Wednesday" series is soon to be released - i do think a more serious and darker take on The Munsters is what would have been needed in 2022 instead of a rehash of the original show which just exists as a queer vanity project for a hardcore fan of the show.

I am a huge fan of The Munsters and Rob Zombie's but sadly this just felt a little off to me. And maybe it's just because i really wanted to like it, but can't avoid it's abundantly obvious flaws.

I will give it another chance, since it does have a certain appeal, and i may bump it up to three stars depending on how i like the film when i watch it in black and white. Nevertheless, on a first watch for a big fan, I'm completely split down the middle.
122 out of 154 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
They really are a scream... but for all the wrong reasons!
31 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
'The Addams Family' (2019) is sadly exactly what you would expect from a movie that lingered in development hell for nearly a decade. While the film brings to life the original characters as drawn by Charles Addams, the film itself is ultimately lifeless; while the animation is at times stylish and colourful, the film itself is tired and lazy, with an uninspired plot and reused jokes. Yet despite the film's overreliance on previously used jokes and tropes, the film still manages to miss the mark entirely and that appears to me to be the result of a fundamental misunderstanding of who the Addams family are.

Truth be told, the movie lost me only ten minutes in; and if a film can't hook you from the opening scene it's a worrying sign of things to come. The idea of the Addams family having an "origin" is somewhat unnecessary yet the one they're given in this film is stripped straight from another movie... one containing their rival family of fright: The Munsters. The opening of the 1995 TV special 'Here Come the Munsters,' sees a family of monsters modelled after the classic Universal horror creatures, chased out of their Transylvanian home by a village mob complete with torches, and the family flee to America to escape persecution. When I saw essentially the same opening in 'The Addams Family,' I sighed. And this laziness was a theme which unfortunately ran throughout the film and it also comes back to a misunderstanding on the writer's part of who the Addams family is since watching the film it very much feels like the script was written for a family like The Munsters. An example of this is when the Addams family venture into town and everyone around them seems to flee with terror and it doesn't quite make sense that they would react that way; if you were confronted by say Herman or Grandpa Munster who represent Frankenstein's monster and Count Dracula respectively that would make perfect sense, but when you instead see Charles Addams's gothic and eccentric family the reaction seems so unwarranted and at times strange. Especially given that over the years, be it in the original 1960s television series or the two Barry Sonnenfeld movies from the 1990s, audiences have seen this family interact with everyday people and not get such a horrifying reaction.

Ordinarily, I'd overlook something like this but when the whole film either doesn't understand its characters or recycles jokes from 1960s television you just can't sit back and enjoy this, because as a fan you've seen it all before and it's been done better too. Even the Addams's residence is an exact copy of the house from the Sonnenfeld movies - albeit somewhat resembling the Inventor's castle on the hill from 'Edward Scissorhands,' (1990) when glimpsed in the background of the suburban hell which also is reminiscent of the coloured houses from 'Scissorhands.' This is a major detractor from the film since when you bog a film down with so many references as this film has, it feels less like homage and more like corner cutting since you had no idea what else to do. But even some of the references feel like odd choices, one being the use of the family pets; the film brings back the house cat (in actuality a lion named Kitty), Morticia's African Strangler plant named after Cleopatra; however, the pet Octopus from the 60s show which was named after the Greek philosopher Aristotle is instead named after Socrates in this film. And since one cannot think of a reason as to why this name change has occurred it just comes across as though the writers were not overly familiar with the source material which is only enforced by all of the aforementioned.

Moreover, the most disappointing aspect of the film is, that since it brings nothing new to the table it's unable to develop its own niche charm and as a result of that the comedy in the movie doesn't work and that's also partially the fault of the liberties taken with the animation. The jokes in the original series and even the Sonnenfeld movies were simple; they'd either be throwaway lines that have double meanings or something would happen offscreen that the characters would bounce off of. Yet in this, the animation is relied upon to create humour, for example, at the dinner table Pugsley climbing into the mouth of a lion to retrieve stolen food is meant to be a joke, yet something like that would never happen realistically; take the first Sonnenfeld movie, Kitty is never seen on screen but is heard roaring and being tamed by Gomez when he takes his initial trip to the vault below the mansion. The implication that Addams's housecat Kitty is a lion is the joke, that works whereas the joke in the animated film doesn't. Another example of this is when Pugsley uses an actual rocket in his attempt to commit fratricide; eventually, he blows up with the rocket and parachutes down. This is a liberty taken by the animation since the characters feel invincible and too cartoonish since no real harm can come to them. The jokes that do work in the film are the simple ones which could have easily worked in the original series, such as Fester checking for rain when he's repeatedly stabbed in the back, Gomez saying he made mistakes in his youth as an answer for why he knows what cotton candy tastes like, or Wednesday having her hair braids shaped to resemble a hangman's noose. Simplicity is always better when it comes to deadpan black comedy, and when it's been utilised so well over the years it makes no sense why this film would attempt to depart from this style of humour as it evidently does not work. The same can be said with the Mazurka routine - a dance involving swordplay which Pugsley must undertake before evolving into a man. The extensive family have all arrived and the dance is treated as a spectacle. But spectacles like this don't feel special in animated films, not when this whole routine is essentially just the Mamuska dance from Sonnenfeld's first Addams movie; that scene is a spectacle since it contains real people all in make-up and costumes, two of which are performing a dance which involves throwing knives. The fact stunt doubles had to be involved is indicative of the scene's inherent danger, but when you're working with animation and no real people are involved the scene just falls flat because there is no gravitas to it. In that sense the Mazurka reminded me greatly of the scene from 'Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties,' (2006), where the two cats meet in the courtyard and partake in the classic mirror image comedy routine made famous by the Marx Brothers; it feels spectacular when the Marx brothers do the routine because it's two people, the same can not be said for two computer-generated cats; in the same vein, the choreographed Mamushka dance from 1991 is infinitely superior to the animated mess of colour and images from 2019.

A modern animation film simply can't do the Addams family justice. Even if the jokes were good, the plot was fresh and it had some sort of charm, the movie still fails inherently because it's animated. The cast of the nuclear family is in theory fantastic, but animation does not allow for an actor to put on a nuanced performance and the dialogue just lets the film down. This is most obvious with scenes containing Morticia and Gomez (one of the most lustful and romantic couples in film and television culture), yet you wouldn't know it from the dialogue, it's sadly very obvious that Oscar Isaac and Charlize Theron recorded their lines separately and in booths. Each character is speaking out loud to themselves even when in conversation and it badly shows. It's just another case as to why this film was a disappointment.

Finally, when it comes to the film's message - that the Addams family are just people no different from the rest of us - it feels very tacked on and forced. Again this comes back to confusing the Addams family with The Munsters; this message as was heavily featured throughout the television show and 'Here Come the Munsters,' works for a family of horror monsters because their story is all an allegory for immigration. With the 'Addams Family' (2019), those said to be mysterious and spooky don't look entirely dissimilar from every other garish character model in the film and considering this was never the message in any piece of Addams Family media, the whole film just entirely falls apart. The moral story of the Addams Family was always promoting family security and a loving nature no matter how different you were. Again, the writers just seemed to mesh Munsters and Addams into one family and it does not work since while both families had surface-level similarities they could not have been more different at their cores and this movie misses that point entirely.

It saddens me to say that this film couldn't be its own thing, it reuses jokes that once were funny, has a boring plot and misunderstands its core characters and morals. With all the references and homages this film is just a reminder of what you could be watching instead of trying to make what you are watching interesting. While the recreation of the original show's intro at the film's climax was a nice inclusion... you honestly didn't need more than that. Seeing that alone was a treat and the film itself which comes before that is nothing more than surplus to requirement. I can't see this appealing much to fans of the originals or being able to gain a new legion of fans. If nothing else this movie makes me want to go back and watch some of the other Addams Family or Munsters media.

Though its sequel was silently shipped off to Amazon Prime, this was an interesting experiment but I doubt the Addams Family will get the big screen treatment again for quite some time, especially not in an animated form.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slender Man (I) (2018)
2/10
Sometimes it's good to forget.
28 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This somewhat forgotten picture of 2018 amounts to a disappointment more than anything else. To address the obvious first: yes, this movie was made a few years too late, and sadly the quality of the finished film means it's likely that it will never be redeemed by gaining cult status by fans of either the horror genre or Victor Surge's eponymous character.

There are maybe one or two frightening scenes that work well in the movie and it occasionally plays with suspense quite well for the first hour. Alas, as the film drag on the numerous fake-outs make the film a laborious bore and it's a struggle when it comes to the last half hour.

You are waiting for the film to end once you've passed the sixty-minute mark, yet even when the film ends it's very unsatisfying. There's nothing wrong with the film's ninety-minute run time but there were far too many scenes cut from this movie (often integral ones revealing the fates of the characters we come across), so when the film ends seemingly out of nowhere it really feels as though you've missed something. You're just sat there left wondering, what was that all about? There's no resolution and therefore, no payoff so it feels as though you've wasted your time.

Even watching the trailer back after finishing the film they feel like two very different products and that's a shame because this could have been so much more than what it ended up being. Especially when you consider Sony already had a ready-made story in their grasp as they could have easily adapted the 2014 'Slender Man' stabbing of Payton Leutner into something appealing. Nevertheless, what you're given is what is essentially an unfinished film, one I definitely would have felt cheated at paying to see in a movie theatre.

Ultimately, Slender Man itself is an old internet creepypasta/meme from a by gone decade, which like this movie is best left forgotten. But, if you're someone out there looking to be entertained by this character (though I can't seriously believe there are many of you nearly a decade on), you're probably better off watching an old YouTube "Let's Play."
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nope (2022)
3/10
If you're wondering whether you should watch this, the title speaks for itself.
20 August 2022
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not the biggest fan when it comes to Jordan Peele's work as a writer and director. That being said, despite quite positively anticipating the release of this film, 'Nope' did not change my opinion on Peele's films.

This was definitely a step-down - in terms of quality - from Us (2019), because once again Peele has displayed an over-reliance on themes which comes at the sacrifice of the overall substance of the movie.

I cannot honestly say I was entertained throughout the whole movie, since my dominant feelings towards the film as I watched it were anger and confusion. I often turned (simultaneously) to the person I was sitting next to essentially pleading for some explanation as to what was happening; this initially started as a little joke between two friends watching a film but after 2 hours and 15 minutes of a convoluted mess plodded by it became more of a chore to sit through.

Now, in a world where streaming services are blotting out the cinema experience like an eclipse, I wholeheartedly respect Jordan Peele for wanting to create a 'spectacle' that would put butts in seats. However, the film is too pretentious in its nature, which not only damages the narrative of the film but also means it fails in basic areas, such as the quality of the acting, since it had such a visual focus placed on the viewing experience.

There were several times when I sat watching this movie that I thought I was witnessing the second coming of Ed Wood, and I don't mean that as a compliment. As I said, I admire Peele's aspiration to create a spectacle, but for me personally, a spectacle is not the equivalent of a Tesco carrier bag flapping about in the wind for a third act. And this sadly is Jordan Peele in a nutshell - his films are jokes without punchlines - there's such an agonising amount of effort put in the build-up but he never quite manages to stick the landing without it feeling forced. This is evident from the fact that the second you see 'Jean Jacket's' true form, the bloom is off the rose entirely as it succeeds more as the unknown black spectre in the clouds, moreover, Emerald's screams of victory towards the end of the film, don't feel earned in any way, and the 'triumph' of the main characters feels unrealistic.

Regardless of this, the film's main detractor for me is the acting that's put on show. You wouldn't know that Daniel Kaluuya is an Oscar winning actor based on his performance in this movie; I've never seen a more wooden, disingenuous and disjointed performance in a film; not only does he look like he's carrying the trauma of every character he's ever played with him but he was able to convince me that he's been lobotomized before arriving on set. I genuinely cannot understand what the aim was in this performance and if anything it makes me question Peele's merit as a director if he can portray an actor of Kaluuya's quality in such an abysmal manner. I can safely say I don't want to see Kaluuya in a movie for a long while after this and I'll certainly be warier of a Peele project in future.

But another issue I had with this film despite the bad acting and the themes which fall short of creating a whole film, is that the whole movie feels too convoluted. When it actually presents us with the sparks of what could have been a solid picture, it serves as a disappointing reminder that we were given something else; OJ, Emerald, Angel, and Holst all feel like side characters in what should have been Steven Yeun's movie.

The most compelling moments of the film often include Steven Yeun's character Jupe. I find that there is a really interesting story about a traumatised young actor who believes he can tame wild beats and in his older years he comes across an extra-terrestrial force which he in turn because of his past experiences believes he can control but it will eventually come at the cost of everything he has built for himself: a home, a family and his theme park (which if Disney World exists should totally be called The Steven Yeun-iverse). But instead, we only get a taste of this story running throughout the overall plot, and it becomes really disappointing since Jupe is by far the more fleshed-out character of the film and with a few tweaks could have had the story revolve around him and ultimately develop an actual narrative which could've saved this dire contemporary B-movie.

In essence, for me, themes and imagery alone do not make up a movie: you need a story!!! And that's something this film lacks and was desperately in need of. Even the fundamental Peele principles were broken in this movie; the characters, largely due to Kaluuya's acting, barely appear human and thusly, they don't act it; even the simple rules the film establishes such as not looking directly at 'Jean Jacket' are broken numerous times by every character. The contrast between 'Nope' and Peele's other movies is so clear since the film often appears devoid of logic; you cannot convince me that either police or reporters following the disappearance of forty people would not have checked Jupe's neighbouring ranch? Specifically, considering they would've found a house drenched in the blood and other miscellaneous remains of the attendees of Jupe's park. While the bloodied house was a beautiful visual it's diminished by the lack of logic that's on display in this film. And that's partly what makes the film so jarring; Peele's films diminish in quality with each one he makes and while I didn't love 'Us,' I would have much rather watched it than this.

This film was nothing more than a disappointment to me, and while some audiences love it, I for one need actual substance in my films to be able to enjoy them.

And I'm sorry in advance, but I'm going to make the joke everyone else has already made: would I recommend this movie or watch it again?

The answer is a resounding:

Nope.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The Last "Good" Schumacher Picture
30 July 2022
I don't really know why I felt compelled to write something positive about this film after seeing its shocking Rotten Tomatoes score of 33%. Yet, here I am! Hunched over my laptop like Quasimodo at two o'clock in the morning.

Joel Schumacher's films have a stigma that surrounds them (often rightly so), largely due to the dumpster fire that was "Batman & Robin," (1997) but there are genuine gems in his filmography once you've separated the wheat from the chaff; films like "The Lost Boys," (1987) and "Phone Booth," (2002) serve as proof of his capability of a director. I would also include 'Phantom,' in that list of films since the strongest aspect of this adaptation of Andrew Llyod Webber's broadway musical and Gaston Leroux's superior 1909 novel is its direction.

The sets are stunning along with the costumes. It's a beautiful film to watch; a factor which certainly works in the film's favour since being distracted by its inherent beauty comes in handy when a scene either outstays its welcome or needlessly contains dialogue that's delivered through song while outside of Webber's musical numbers. It's a minor detractor but when you have a film that's over two hours long it does begin to grate on an audience member's nerves by the halfway point.

Other than that the film is well cast, with a highlight being the queer combination of Simon Callow and Ciarán Hinds who - display more chemistry than Butler and Rossum - as the co-owners of the Paris Opera House: Monsieurs Andre and Firmin respectively.

The only major criticism I have of the film despite its length and the spontaneous delivery of lines as song lyrics would be The Phantom's appearance. Usually, I would never complain at having an excuse to look at an attractive man for over two hours but Gerrard Butler is just presented as too handsome for this character; I do bear in mind that that's by design since Schumacher was following the more romantic Webber musical than Leroux's macabre source material and so the film necessitates an attractive lead, but even when The Phantom is finally unmasked at the end... he doesn't look that bad.

While it's not out of the realms of possibility that The Phantom would've been used as a sideshow geek as a child, the disgust that seems to surround his appearance comes off as rather unwarranted; especially when compared to previous iterations of the character; Butler's Phantom comes off as a regular Casanova when compared to the grotesque visages of either Lon Chaney or Robert Englund in their own respective film adaptations. However, I am willing to admit that's just a personal preference on my part.

Overall, Schumacher's "Phantom of the Opera," is a beautiful fairytale spectacle that'll dazzle you whether you're paying attention or not.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Thor 4 is Poor
12 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Without even touching on plot holes and things that generally make no sense in this movie for the wider MCU, there is about thirty minutes of footage that belongs to what could have been a serious dark movie - to nobody's surprise all of these scenes include Christian Bale.

This could have been a film about a man who loses his daughter and subsequently his faith in his God who becomes corrupted by a sword which was created by Knull, God of the Symbiotes (not that the movie feels the need to tell you any of this). As a result this man makes it his mission to rid the universe of all its Gods. And while on his journey this man turned God Butcher comes across a terminally ill woman who fell in love with one of the deities that our antagonist has made it his mission to kill.

Now that's what we could have had... but what we got, is a movie so forgettable in it's plot that i barely remembered the Guardians of the Galaxy were in this when the credits roll, but the comedy in this movie is actively damaging in its attempt to be a carbon copy of Ragnarok. I liked Ragnarok, but I wasn't left wanting another one. This movie could have been so much more than a boring comedy over saturated with lame gags and over-used unfunny jokes; it absolutely wastes Oscar winning actors and actresses in its pursuit to be funny, that's it's just sad to watch because it sacrifices its story and all I end up thinking about is what it could have been.

Despite the fact that Gorr the God Butcher is only seen KILLING ONE GOD!!! Christian Bale's performance is by far the highlight of the movie and it's a shame that he didn't have more screen time and his motives and transformation weren't more fully fleshed out. And I can't help but feel that had this movie been come a phase or two before now, and had someone other than Waititi working on the script, it would have been a much better movie. Instead it's just another factory produced piece of garbage churned out by the Marvel machine, but due to the inclusion of Bale and everything involving him it makes this movie disappointing more than anything.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Frankenstein (II) (2015)
8/10
"You are magnificent!"
8 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This is one of those films that I was fortunate enough to come across by random chance and thoroughly enjoyed. "Frankenstein," breathes life into a story that's been recycled to death without straying too far away from the source material. The film is perfect for fans of Shelley's novel and all the film adaptations that succeeded it since it splendidly compliments both and the modern climate doesn't detract from the story in any way; what you're left with is a contained tale of torture and pain. And it's magnificent.

The premise of a husband and wife striving to become a modern Prometheus power couple is an interesting concept - one I'll admit I was quite dubious of at first. Though after viewing the film it works perfectly: Elizabeth Frankenstein (played by Carrie-Anne Moss) and Victor Frankenstein (Danny Huston) are two sides of the same coin; Elizabeth embodies all the good and ethical qualities of Shelley's original protagonist, whereas Victor very much embodies all of the obsessive mad scientist qualities that we know the character possesses. Though they are by no means good people, it's very much a "good mad scientist/bad mad scientist" situation that flows throughout the opening act, but it provides a nice balance that's maintained from start to finish. It's a welcome addition to the ever-expanding Frankenstein mythos and personally, I think both actors were perfectly cast in those roles.

This was, however, my introduction to Xavier Samuel and his performance of the creature Adam, which truly made my heart bleed. It's the most sympathetic portrayal of the character since Karloff's because I don't think it's been replicated quite as well since. Adam lives his entire life over the course of the film's run time - experiencing infancy, adolescence and adulthood all over the course of one week. His adoration for his 'mother' Elizabeth and his cries to be loved and accepted are very disturbing and uncomfortable to watch; it definitely worked in my favour as a viewer that I was unfamiliar with the actor since it helped to make his performance all the more believable to me. He kills with the curiosity of a child and means no harm to anyone as he is lost in a cruel world that he is attempting to navigate himself through solo. I think it does add an additional layer of sympathy to Adam since he is played by a characteristically attractive young male, in contrast to Karloff who very much does look like an abomination.

Another thing I particularly enjoyed was the horror elements of the film; Adam rejecting his man-made flesh and rotting day by day reminded me of when Christiane rejects the flesh of her new face in Georges Franju's "Les Yeux sans Visage." There are also several references and homages to James Whale's Frankenstein movies, with a wonderful recreation of the creature coming across a girl by a lake and accidentally drowning her - interestingly the writer and director of the film (Bernard Rose) chose to have Adam save the girl from drowning almost as if he was trying to redeem earlier iterations of the creature and ultimately add more substance to the character rather than making him a brainless zombie which audiences had become accustomed to as a result of the British Hammer horror Frankenstein movies.

The last homage is a gleeful reunion of Bernard Rose and Tony Todd (the former had previously directed Candyman in 1992). Todd plays a modern incarnation of the blind musician that Karloff's creature comes across in "The Bride of Frankenstein," and it's a testament to Todd's versatility as an actor that he can play an equally sympathetic role alongside Samuel. I can never get enough of Todd's acting and wish there had been more of an interaction between Eddie (Todd's character) and Adam. Both had staggering chemistry despite the blind and mute gimmick they respectively inhabit. Eddie is the closest Adam gets to a father in his short life - going as far as to name him his 'protector' - and seeing the two of them stumble through life as a homeless duo is strangely heart-warming in such a macabre film.

It was a pleasure watching this deeply sad story that was well written, acted, and directed, my only criticism would be that it was too short. I'm a very avaricious person and I only wish I'd gotten more from the film. That being said this is a rather overlooked adaptation that deserves more of a spotlight upon it.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Parasite (2019)
10/10
Bong's Magnum Opus
23 June 2022
Warning: Spoilers
This is a film that blew me away the first time I saw it. That being said this is a film that demands a second watch - if not more - because there are so many little details that you either miss or they don't sink in the first time you watch the film. Moreover, it should be specified that this time I was viewing the black and white edition which beautifully highlights the film's production and style; it adds a certain layer of unease to the picture. When we first see the Park's house shrouded in shadows and darkness we know full well what's to come and it's almost like the film knows that too.

The house is beautiful and it's astounding that the lower level and the interior is built from scratch (the second level being CG, not that you'd notice). The house when looked at in black and white can almost be seen as a gothic castle from classic literature or some of the early Universal horror films. But what I really find unsettling is the iceberg aspect of the house; it's almost too spacious and it feels much bigger on the inside than it does on the outside; it's a maze of materialism which is a stark contrast to the semi-basement that the Kim clan live in - another benefit of seeing the film in black and white is that it accentuates the differences between the families who are all parasites in their own right, the Kim family infiltrate a household and live off of the hosts without them knowing while the Parks have to rely on everyone in their family to function. It's also worth noting that there are enough chairs around the table in the Park's kitchen to sit everyone and yet there is still a very clear rich/poor divide. Ultimately, the Park's disconcerting house makes the architect Namgoong one of the most interesting characters in the film despite the fact he's never seen apart from the odd photograph that decorates the house.

I'm not entirely sure if I feel the same way I do about this version of the film as I do with the colour version, simply because the black and white cinematography helps to present the film as an unconventional horror film about the ignorance of the upper classes, greed, fate and the ambition of those below them. One of the most blatant examples of the rich living in ignorance is when Park's wife is shopping for Da Song's birthday party and she remarks that the rain was a blessing; we now this not to be the case as we saw the Kim's semi-basement flooded with sewage water and many more families having to sleep on the floor of a gym. It's a subtle indication that if the Park's are simple enough to not see the problems of society below their castle on the hill then it's unsurprisingly that they wouldn't notice it happening in their own household.

At a base level, there's nothing more terrifying than the thought of someone (an intruder) living in your house without you knowing. Thusly, there was nothing more horrifying than noticing the light sensors turn on as Nathan Park ascends the stairs of his home - as we know what he does not - that there is a parasite living in the hidden basement operating the lights via a system of switches. This is one of the reasons why the film has to be seen more than once as it's even better going into it knowing everything that's going to happen. The subtle references Park makes to Kim about his former housekeeper eating enough for two come off as a joke upon first viewing but the second time around that off-hand remark cannot be viewed as anything but deeply sinister.

The last thing that can be commented on is fate, the importance of the scholar's rock and viewing Ki Woo (Kevin) as the film's main character. Each member of the Kim family is unsatisfied with their surroundings but the only one who actively seeks to change their position within society is Ki Woo: Kim is content to adapt to his surroundings, Chung Sook is cynical and only tries so hard to make a change, while Ki Jung has skills of her own and has worked in the past to earn money for herself. The siblings are the schemers but fate intervenes to the aid of one while abandoning the other.

The scholar's rock which is said to bring material wealth to the owners is a constant in this film; as the Kim family sat encircled around their table the rock is seen in the background as the camera pans around the family, it has a domineering presence within the film, somewhat like Chekov's gun as the rock will be used as a weapon and the family will pay a price for the material gains they so briefly held. The rock is almost like a plot device as Kevin is undoubtedly the possessor of the rock as seen when he clutches it to his chest in the gym following the flood; he is the one who makes the Faustian deal as the materialist lifestyle he strives for comes at a price a la the monkey's paw tale.

While the ending is left somewhat ambiguous despite the fact that director Bong Joon Ho states the likelihood of Ki Woo earning enough money to buy the Park's house in the future is practically impossible, I feel different looking at the ending this time around. It almost seems too easy to look at the sequence of the Kim family reunion as a ghost scene much like the family reunion scene in The Host (another work in Bong Joon Ho's filmography). To me, it would be a much more satisfying and still horrifying ending that during the climax the three surviving members of the Kim clan are reunited but the Faustian consequence of Ki Woo's possession of the rock meant that he gets everything he ever wanted - to be rich - but it comes at the price of the death of his sister, the mental torture of his mother, the captivity of his father and all of the other bloodshed that occurred at Da Song's party. You can look at the ending in both ways with this in mind: if Ki Woo purchases the Park's old house and is now a member of the elite, was it worth the price? And if this is just another ghost sequence and it never happens, was any of it all worth it in the first place? A taste of what it was like to be rich was very costly to the Kim family. A price that doesn't discriminate as it was the hamartia that led to the fall of the Parks.

All I can say at this point is there is no limit to the number of times that someone should watch this movie. It's a masterwork that'll get better every time you see it.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
The "Sinister" of the 2020s
22 June 2022
Perhaps if Finney had read the movie's tagline, this whole awful mess could have been easily avoided.

This movie'll teach your kids two things: you can't trust Jesus or magicians.

I like many had been eagerly awaiting this movie after seeing the poster reveal; getting a chance to see the connecting Sardonicus-esque mask at a comic con; and devouring the trailers. Thankfully, I was the furthest thing from disappointed; I really enjoyed this movie, because it contained so much of what I love about horror, and therefore, it appealed to me.

The film does have some (very inoffensive) detractors - which I'll draw attention to later - but since I went into watching this in a bad mood (one unrelated to the fact I was seeing the film), it totally brightened my day and for that reason, I am aware that I'll sound slightly prejudiced regarding this film but I'll focus on the positives primarily.

It was a pleasant surprise having Scott Derrickson return to the horror genre (after having previously directed an entry in the Hellraiser series and the first instalment of Sinister). There is no real downside to Derrickson's directing as he gave his actors a lot of free reign while performing largely due to the talent they possess, but the real strength is how he is able to merge what feels like an old-school horror movie with the more modern and polished paranormal horror.

This is probably what I think the movie does best, the first hour or so feels very much like an unintentional homage to the works of John Carpenter: everything from the late 70s suburban locale, to the characters conversing through a tracking shot while walking down a sidewalk, and right down to the heart-pounding synth of the opening track that reminded me a lot of Carpenter's music from Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Mark Korven doesn't outstay his welcome with the synth or the score, it's heard when it needs to be and vice versa. The latter half of the movie does feel a lot like Andy Muschietti's IT: Chapter One, and it is because you have a bunch of wronged children attempting to take down a killer who does tend to favour balloons. That is one of the movie's drawbacks and it is a sad one because the unexplained paranormal elements of the film are its weakest elements, from why the phone works to how the kids appear as phantasms are never really divulged to the audience and it does subtract a tad from the dark and gritty story that was being told up until that point. That being said the writing does deserve a fair amount of praise; as a long-time fan of Stephen King, I'd have expected nothing less from a movie based on one of the stories penned by his son - Joe Hill.

Moving on, before I get to the actors, I'd be committing a cardinal sin of horror if I didn't draw attention to the mask. It brings me an endless amount of joy that Tom Savini continues to exercise his craft; he and his team really hit home with this one; the mask is stunningly horrifying and it fits the Grabber's character perfectly. It looks worn, dirty, useful and something a bombastic killer would wear. So the BTS crew for the movie do a great job, and the mask still leaves a lot of room for Hawke to act.

Hawke is an excellent actor and you can tell that because he does so much with his eyes. The mask doesn't limit his acting ability in the slightest, if anything he transcends it as it almost becomes a part of him: it tells him how to feel, how to act and you always know what you're going to get from the man behind the mask because he's already shown you without telling you. He is terrifying and that makes his performance great. He is every parent's worst nightmare. And while I always hesitate to cite a particular performance as a career-best for an actor who is still active within the industry, it must be said that this is in the upper echelons of Hawke's great work. Or at least it's certainly up there with Before Sunrise for me.

And as someone who typically tries to avoid anything with child actors in it, the acting on behalf of Mason Thames and Madeleine McGraw is outstanding. McGraw does outshine Thames purely for the scene with her father and the belt... it's raw, harsh, believable, and horror in its own right.

Your enjoyment of this movie will pretty much depend on how much love you bear for horror and particular storytelling devices but the film contains elements of everything that makes up a great movie and as he did with Sinister I wouldn't be surprised if Derrickson's "Black Phone" has as much of an impact on this decade than the former did on the last.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inspector Gadget 2 (2003 Video)
7/10
Go-go Gadget a good interpretation of Claw!
31 October 2018
Re-watching this in 2018 it still holds up as good imaginative storytelling with a loveable hero and maniacal villain.

French Stuart is a wonderful Gadget and gives the role more justice than Broderick in the original. Tony Martin keeps Claw's face hidden and has a gravely voice reminiscent of Frank Welker's Claw.

To put it simply, it's better than the first in every way, and follows the characters more faithfully than the original.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Tim Burton's Masterpiece
17 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Considering the complex character of Edward Scissorhands being based of a sketch done by Burton, Caroline Thompson does a wonderful job developing the story, with a character that hurts anyone who gets to close.

The film features the first collaboration between Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, Depp even admits to crying the first time he read the script. The character is loved by many, mainly for Depp's tear-jerking performance. Despite his exterior look he is the sweetest being ever "made." I also feel sympathetic for the character knowing you can't help him, you feel as isolated as the Inventor's castle on the mountain.

Edward and his stark contrasts to "normal" people is also presented through the houses; Edward dark and isolated from everyone else where all the rest are colourful and interactive with each other.

Winona Ryder was Depp's real life girlfriend at the time, she declined a role in "The Godfather Part III" (1990) to take the role of Kim Boggs, the love between Kim and Edward is heart-warming and one of the main themes of the movie.

Every time i view the film i always end up crying and it's also due to Danny Elfman's superb soundtrack.

Burton does a fantastic job directing his most well known film, he also includes his childhood hero Vincent Price "The Inventor."

Burton is an iconic visionary director and marvellous storyteller and it has never been more evident than in his most recognisable picture.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Genre Perfection
17 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Wow! "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" perfectly blends horror and thriller together in this beautiful black and white film. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are so good at playing their characters; due to their real life hatred of one another, the hatred for the two is also seen on screen which works beautifully with the films plot.

Robert Aldrich most known for directing "The Dirty Dozen" (1967), had struck gold with this film first, despite having to endure the constant Feud of Bette and Joan; it certainly couldn't have been easy.

Bette Davis-having done her own make-up and wearing one of the wigs Crawford had used on a film before-looked the part perfectly, of an ageing adult with a child's mind.

The twist of the film's ending is magnificent, you spend the entire movie feeling sympathetic for Blanche Hudson (Joan Crawford) and hating the evil sister Baby Jane Hudson (Bette Davis). The twist at the films climax turns the tables and leaves you feeling sympathetic for Baby Jane,as you as a viewer realise what happened to Baby Jane.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Burtonesque At its Finest
17 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Not only is "Batman Returns" the best Batman film in the original anthology, it is also one of Tim Burton's best films. The sets are superb and dark-a vast improvement from the seemingly oil canvas backgrounds of Batman (1989)-Bo Welch and the set designers done a magnificent job capturing the vibe of Gotham City. The most impressive set is the Penguin's Lair, which contained several live Penguins and over half a million gallons of water; despite it's horror vibe it is the most familiar and aesthetically pleasing set. The exterior of Gotham is very reminiscent of Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927).

In typical Burton fashion, parents are presented in a negative light; this is seen at the start of the film-in the most memorable opening to a Batman movie, as well as Danny Elfman's superb track "Birth of a Penguin." Oswald Cobblepot is abandoned at birth for his grotesque, Penguin-like features, he is placed in a basket and thrown into a river which eventually leads him to the "Arctic World" beneath "Gotham Zoo." I suppose that's what happens when Pee-Wee Herman (Paul Reubens) is your father. The Penguin's abandonment has several similarities to the story of Moses featured in the book of Exodus in the Bible; this theme is further explored as Penguin's main plan is to capture and kill all first born sons of Gotham, by drowning them in the sewer.

Danny DeVito's portrayal of the penguin is magnificent, he is funny, strangely charming, evil, psychotic and the viewer can not help but feel sympathetic for his character; i often struggle holding back the tears when his death scene arrives-yet again made better by Elfman's superb score.

Michael Keaton reprises his role as Batman, he is even more brooding and impressive in this much darker sequel.

Michelle Pfeiffer is amazing at playing Catwoman. She is seen at first playing the pathetic Selena Kyle until she is killed and "re-born" as Catwoman; the perfectly dark, sinister and sexy character for the Burtonesque Universe.

Christopher Walken plays the shrewd businessman Max Shreck, his name is the same of the German actor who plays "Count Orlok" in "Nosferatu," this s also referenced in the film; before Shreck pushes Selena out of a window he looks as though he goes to bite her neck. His performance is so dastardly brilliant you can't help liking him, despite his evil persona.

Batman Returns has an amazing cast, director, soundtrack, script, plot and set designs; every second is entertaining and the dark setting adds to the Gothic vibe. The colours used are very similar to those used in early silent German horror films-most notably "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari." Burton captures the true essence of Batman in this movie, it's even enjoyable if you're not a fan of the caped crusader.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Ed Wood's Message Remains Relevant
16 January 2018
First off, Bela Lugosi has an eerily wonderful portrayal of the "Scientist" i was always left waiting for his next scene.

The films score is fantastic, the music really helps set the scene, especially during silent scenes.

Ed Wood has a very emotional portray of both sides of his character, the film is still relevant in today's society as Wood's beliefs are rarely found. His message is emotional at times and the film never fails to catch your attention or entertain.

Certainly not Wood's best movie but one that has a more visible, deeper meaning.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Ed Wood's B-Movie Masterpiece
16 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The pairing of Edward D. Wood Jr. & Bela Lugosi is perfect, from reviving his career with Ed and proving he could still act as well as he used too.

His perfermance as Dr. Vornoff is maniachally and sadistically wonderful, from feeding people to a huge Octopus and his cruel treatment of Lobo (Tor Johnson). He also comes across as the perfect Mad scientist.

Although the sets are poorly made, it certainly gives off a very eerie setting.

Despite having no lines Tor Johnson delivers a wonderful portrayal as the "Atomic-Superman" Lobo.

"Bride of The Monster" is definetely one of Wood's signature films, and is definetely worth a watch.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed