A woman starts having horrible nightmares that turn out to be visions of actual violent crimes that she is unwillingly involved.
Amazing opening shot followed by an hour and fifty minutes of Hollywood dumbness. I hate writing this way about films, especially horrors. I’ve said it numerous times. Horror fans might be somewhat eccentric and geeks, but we are not dumb! James Wan especially and New Line Cinema should know and respect that. Even though the story is decent, its development is dumb, the character development is beyond understanding and that should stop! Let me rephrase, it should have stopped a long time ago. “Jump scares” is a tool for narrative, not a narrative pattern to build a whole film on. Same applies for the cardboard cut out characters that no one can empathise with.
Why is it that you hear the word ‘dumb’ and its permutations again and again? Because a solid narrative does not rely on constant music to evoke the desired emotions and feelings. That applies for every genre, in this instance though, for both the drama and the horror unfolding in the story. Take Winnie for example: a Hollywood typical. Ingrid Bisu, often cast by Wan, is a wonderful woman (and actress) and she pretends to be a geek who the person who has a crush on won’t even consider looking her that way. Also, she seems like a cat person who can;t find love. PLEASE! Honestly, name one girl who looks like that, is a geek, and cannot find someone (she co-wrote it, by the way).
James Wan is a solid director, I especially love his tracking shots and his use of close-ups. It’s not enough though. Malignant’s script is full of plot holes and that shows so much more on the big screen. And no filmmaking technique or decent acting can make that right. I wish I could be less harsh on the film, but, trust me, I’m already holding my punches.
Stay safe!
P.S. OK, the prison and police station sequences were gruesomely entertaining!
After suspecting that his son has been kidnapped, a father does everything in his power to find him.
A parent’s worst fear depicted in a sorrowful, yet mysterious way. For starters, James McAvoy could not be a mediocre actor even if he tried his best. The guy is phenomenal! His acting is out of this world. Writer/director Christian Carion, who adapted his own homonymous film My Son (2017), applied the same technique he did back then: Everyone but McAvoy had received the script so his reactions to every stimulus of the story is genuine. On to that story, then…
The first act is about the missing boy, the parents’ tribulations, the mother’s new boyfriend, and their triangle. Somewhere there you get the odd questions from Inspector Roy that start complicating the issue further but the focus, rightfully, stays on the parents and the missing boy. Until then, the drama and the mystery are well-balanced and one can only feel for the both of them and hope for a happy ending. Imagine I hate happy endings and I most certainly wished for one.
The second act is taken over by mystery where McAvoy, like Liam Neeson without a plan, but hell-bent on finding his son, applies some basic investigating skills. The outcome of his actions is natural and believable as he has not previously displayed any similar skills whatsoever; just a dad willing to do anything to find his son. Eventually, it turns into a nail-biting thriller that in the end… confuses with the turn of events. There might not be a narrative twist, but there is an emotional one. Personally, I found myself wondering how the ending is befitting and even though I understood it to some degree, it evoked mixed feelings inside me. It seemed somewhat rushed and even though throughout act I and II bothered to explain what was going on – which you might find unnecessary – it abruptly ended giving away nothing. Again, I understand open endings, but I struggled, and still do, to find meaning in that one. But that is just me.
I hope you enjoy the thrill it has to offer and yet another stupendous performance from McAvoy. Quick note: I’ve praised Claire Foy in everything she has been in before, and her acting here is nothing but remarkable too. I just think that she deserved more screen time.
A private investigator with access to people’s memories unfolds a conspiracy that also involves the disappearance of his beloved woman.
Interesting yet intricate plot that tells more than it shows. What has happened, but not to the full extent, becomes pretty straightforward from the very beginning. Until the inciting incident, a sci-fi, neo-noir unfolds that emphasises on nostalgia. Once it becomes clear what the story is about, the plot and the subplot become respectively unclear. I struggled to figure out which is which. One is a decent love story and the other is a decent crime one. But which one is the plot? And what are they together if both of them are the plot? Or the subplot? See the confusion?
There is a jigsaw waiting to be put in order and Hugh Jackman, Thandiwe Newton, Rebecca Ferguson and (the massively underrated) Cliff Curtis do a great job putting it together, but the film’s imbalance, and the editing’s rhythm and pace do not help. Director Lisa Joy, the woman behind Westworld (2016-2022) gets Newton and Angela Sarafyan on board and even though she did a very decent job putting it together the result was not probably exactly what she hoped for. That said, the extremely poor box office does not reflect on that result – Budget: $54,000,000 (estimated) / International Box Office: $11,900,000. You will not regret watching it so go for it.
Here’s another one for you. At times, it felt like this was a film about Hugh Jackman, who, in his fifties, he still looks the same awesome, well-trained, good-looking man he was ten and twenty years ago. Not saying this is positive or negative but it becomes yet another factor that takes the focus away from the story and, consequently, distracts. Again, I hope you forget your problems for about two hours and enjoy it.
Stay safe!
P.S. Fun fact: Lisa Joy is the wife of Jonathan Nolan, brother of Christopher Nolan who has directed Hugh Jackman in Prestige (2006)
P.P.S. Fun fact 2: Hugh Jackman and Rebecca Ferguson worked together before in The Greatest Showman (2017)
A road-rage incident makes an unstable man go berserk on a young mother and everyone she cares about.
Intense and brutal action/thriller with a bat-sh*t crazy Crowe! The film doesn’t lack anything. Great performances, relatable characters, chase sequences, realistic violence, and great editing pace and rhythm. Yet, it didn’t do that well at the box office, but I guess being one of the first theatrical release entries after the US lockdown is the main reason. Director Derrick Borte envisages this American horrific reality, Russell Crowe and Caren Pistorius go full throttle against each other on screen, and the result is definitely worth your time. It is not a film you’ll be constantly talking about after the end credits start scrolling down, but it’s a great addition to the series of thrillers/horrors where someone… unhinged, with unknown at first motives, goes after the hero/ine while committing atrocities. I can’t hide that my favourite one is Steven Spielberg’s original Duel (1971).
To cut the long story short, I very much enjoyed it, and I highly recommend it to suspense lovers like myself. Rachel’s decisions are somewhat annoying from time to time, but it’s not her fault as the Hollywood-type script dictates such decisions. Unfortunately, we live in a world where road rage has spread like pestilence and it’s everywhere. Hideous crimes happen daily on the streets just because someone happened to hit the break abruptly. It’s shocking, horrible, uncivilised, and inhumane. Watching Unhinged and saying “reality is worse” is not encouraging. We all need to chill the f@€% out.
Stay safe!
P.S. For those who think that Crow has completely let himself go, please know that he had been consulting a dietitian to achieve that result throughout the film.
A father from Oregon makes it a mission to walk to New York and preach along the way against bullying after his teenage son gets tortured for being gay.
Mixed feelings throughout all three acts. Right off the bat, from the first flashbacks, the first impression is that a working-class dad who surprisingly supports his son for being gay does not support him enough to have him parade it in his front yard. Therefore, my question was: his problem was showing it off? Then, I thought to myself that it is biographical so if this is how it was, this is how it was. Then, I got a different problem. As the story develops, I thought that it doesn’t let you think for yourself at all; it spoon-feeds you the message all the way through. It forces you to side with Jadin by telling you – not showing you – who the “bad” guy is and who the “good” guy is in a black or white manner. Then, there is another “then”: Jadin accusing Joe for not being supportive enough, and Joe accusing Jadin for not handling it (in present era) creates a vague gray area in the film’s otherwise “black or white” scheme for the supportive people but questions their level of support. Here’s my two cents in general…
People, and more specifically bullies, need to feel what it is like to be bullied without being bullied, hated or criticised for thinking and acting the way they do. They need to understand that to other people they are as different as the people they pick on. I did some research and this is what the real Joe Bell tried to do. He was non-violently preaching against it because his son faced the consequences and he wanted, to his best abilities, to make the world a better place. A friendly for all of us place so no one has to suffer what his son did, and, consequently, any other boy, girl, man, woman, or non-binary person out there.
Somehow though, Mark Wahlberg as Joe Bell, the late Larry McMurty (RIP) and Diana Ossana’s script, and Reinaldo Marcus Green’s directing does not reflect that. Joe Bell does not know where to focus on and massively holds back on the emotions it means to evoke. Take for example when his mother, Lola (Connie Britton), finds out. This should have been the moment where the toughest one breaks. And one wonders, how can this be with so many A-list names wearing the producer’s hat: Mark Wahlberg, Cary Joji Fukunaga, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis, and 17 more…
To cut the long story short, Joe Bell makes it more about Joe Bell rather than his incredibly noble and courageous mission. Ironically, he says it himself to the sheriff while opening up. And he keeps doing it. Shame really as if it wasn’t for this film I, and potentially hundreds of thousands of others, wouldn’t have known about this mission. But the real shame is that his mission’s message doesn’t really permeate. It does not sink in and therefore there is nothing much to take away from it. And the Bell family’s story is absolutely f@£$!^% tragic!
I really do hope each of us finds an honourable way to make this world feel like… home. For everyone!
A gang of highly skilled killers invades the blind man’s house to kidnap his daughter, not knowing what he is capable of.
Worthy sequel shot in a standard Hollywood manner. Acting first: Stephen Lang is an incredible actor. That’s it.
Moving on to the plot, it gets trickier. The first act sets a thrilling foundation that promises a horrific brutality that, potentially, matches the first. The first plot point’s protracted tracking shot increases the tension while making obvious what is about happen next. And what is actually happening is quite brutal. As brutal as promised though? Yes! So what are the differences with Don’t Breathe (2016)?
Don’t Breathe 2 is a lot more far-fetched but reasonable enough for a sequel. Not a problem, it’s expected. Then… In the first one, what we have is poor, untalented boys and girls – harmless thieves who have no idea what they are up against – enter the blind man’s house whose intentions are revealed to be shockingly sinister and unfathomably perverse. In Don’t Breathe 2, the competition is way tougher and, against all odds, he is (somehow) the victim – even though the twist and consequently the intentions come a tad early. But the confrontation (act 2) is not restricted to just a house and develops the story and leads it even further than expected, to, actually, extremely unexpected paths. As I can’t say much about the plot’s development, I’ll focus on the one thing that got me asking: What the hell was going on in writer/director Rodo Sayagues’ head while balancing the characters’ morality? What everyone has done, is doing, and what is about to do is just beyond me. And I leave you with that. From a filmmaking point of view, there is nothing much to say. Other than the aforementioned protracted shot, nothing much stands out. From a narrative point of view, the film walks a tight rope risking to lose the audience by tipping the scales as to who to root for – the morality issue.
Watch it and see for yourselves what I mean. It does not necessarily mean that it’s “good” or “bad”, that’s hardly ever the case anyway. Overall, I found it enjoyable and do recommend it. It’s the kind of morbid entertainment that doesn’t come even remotely close the horrific reality we are currently facing.
An agoraphobic woman witnesses a crime that, in order to take action, she will have to face her deepest fear.
Interesting premise, great acting, yet fails to deliver on many fronts. Amy Adams, Gary Oldman, Julianne Moore, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Wyatt Russell are great. That’s the elephant in the room. Tracy Letts’ script and Joe Wright’s directing create a significant issue though: they increase, by the minute, the distance between the audience and Anna – admittedly, not intentionally. The close-ups are plenty, and so are the Dutch angles, the tracking shots, and the low and high angles throughout. It would be very interesting to ask the editor, Valerio Bonelli, about his experience editing it. It feels like its pace is all over the place and its rhythm like a song you want to like but you are too confused to dance to it. Bonelli seems like the person who puts together scattered pieces of visuals that the filmmakers had no idea what to do with. That causes the twists to not being able to find their place in the plot and, consequently, they lose their gravitas. The fact that A.J. Finn’s book has been receiving raving reviews and the film nothing but scathing, makes Wright’s film a mediocre adaptation for the big screen. I haven’t read the book though therefore, I cannot really comment on that, just putting it out.
This is a character-driven story that shouldn’t have been Brian DePalma meets Alfred Hitchcock, but Body Double (1984) meets Rear Window (1954). It’s a real shame to have so many talented people involved in front and behind the cameras and get that head-scratching result. Too many techniques and influences that, ultimately, cancel each other out and leave the audience indifferent, at best. In the end, I didn’t know if it was the plot’s drama or the final cut’s that made me want to cry. I’ll go with the latter.
After losing their only son and their remarried daughter-in-law moves away against her will with their grandson, a retired sheriff and his wife set out to bring them back.
An amazing on-screen couple in a suspenseful, yet emotionally superficial story. My suspicions about the depth started with the inciting incident which was the death of their son. It would have really made me cry if writer/director Thomas Bezucha let Kevin Costner be the actor he really is and then cut to Diane Lane’s response. A father losing his only son is a scene that would break anyone in half. Let alone followed by the mother’s reaction. And Let Him Go… lets it go quite easily – no pun intended. I get the hard-macho-old-sheriff-ranch man who doesn’t show many feelings but even they develop strong bonds with their sons (but also daughters).
Having said that, what Bezucha does well is build up the suspense. The moment they start asking about Donnie Weboy it gets quite intense. It gets, actually, surprisingly intense. And then they make it to dinner with the Weboys where I could hear heartbeat. I say no more about that because you need to watch it for yourselves. But the emotions keep fluctuating throughout and neither build up nor reach climax. Shame really because the story has all the right ingredients that are lost in the plot’s development.
Diane Lane and Kevin Costner were a great couple as Clark Kent’s parents and are a great couple here as well. They play it really well from the beginning, to the motel’s room, to the revenge. Let Him Go is definitely worth-watching and even though it could dwell on the drama a lot more it most definitely transcends the difference between the way men and women think and how that affects them both. Plus, the final scene in the house pays off.
But forget what I or anyone else thinks about it and, as I said, have a go at it. It is Lane and Costner in the same film. In the meantime…
A man who just came out of prison is trying to rehabilitate, but life seems to have more downs than expected.
Working-class problems and unfulfilled dreams portrayed in a disjointed way. Watching it I was trying to figure it out… I was wondering… why is it that I find it disjointed? Halfway there, it somewhat hit me. It felt like writer/director Sabrina Doyle hasn’t experienced what she has written and directed. And, if I’m mistaken and she has, she hasn’t been able to translate it to the screen. The same applies to Pablo Schreiber and Jena Malone’s capacity as executive producers because as actors they are doing a fine job, but as producers they should have contributed, I believe, a lot more. They are really great actors, but Doyle’s script and directing ties their hands behind their backs. I honestly feel like the film misses the depth it deserves and both Schreiber and Malone shine – Schreiber especially put a lot of effort both physically and emotionally. Malone, on the other hand, is amazing as she always have been in every film she’s been in.
Regardless of what I say though, Lorelei did critically well and I couldn’t be happier about it. Sounds contradictory? I couldn’t be happier about a film doing well that deals with working class issues, second chances, and chasing dreams. And that’s what it deals with at the end of the day. The chances we have been looking for in life and we were never afforded. The dreadful questions every morning when we struggle to get out of bed; what have I done wrong or why I cannot fix it? Lorelei‘s intentions are honest and even though it could have been made differently, it still urges the viewer to go after their dreams. I hope one day we all manage to stay up all night and watch the sun rise from the ocean.
The vast majority of pro-Purgers take the law into their own hands and extend the New Founding Fathers of America’s tradition… indefinitely.
The burning issues of a modern society under the microscope of a tired annual blood holiday. I liked the opening credits’ titles to be fair, as they were creative and summed up a lot of the issues we are currently facing that either make us ashamed of ourselves, depress us, enrage us, or just cut our breath short. This Purge though doesn’t build up like its predecessors did, and the reason is non other than the obvious: this purge does not end; it is merely the beginning. And as much as this could be something refreshing in the franchise, it ends up being pedantic, to say the least. It lacks depth and premasticates the meaning for you with the intent to unnecessarily lead and intentionally prevent you from thinking for yourselves.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mind the honest message behind it, but I don’t appreciate the way Hollywood undermines the audience’s intelligence. I don’t like badly criticising films that dozens of talented people have starred in and thousands of also talented people have worked in all three stages of production. For example, the two and a half minute shot is remarkable and even though it has been done before and it has been done better, the fact still remains that both cast and crew have put their hearts and soul in it. Producers Michael Bay and Jason Blum should be giving a lot more credits to the people that spend money and time for their entertainment. Like myself, all horror fans but also cinephiles want to appreciate an, at least, decent cinematic experience. That’s ll we ask. They are talented filmmakers with years of experience under their belt, and I would be honoured if I were to work with them. Films like The Forever Purge though feel more like capitalising the decay our world experiences rather than urging people to think why they feel or act the way they do and where they stand in a world that craves for diversity and unity.
Writer James DeMonaco and the studios should have put an end to the franchise a long time ago but I’ll leave you with a positive note. If you make it to the closing credits, blast the music and enjoy! Awesome and meaningful song!
Stay safe!
P.S. Still, my thoughts and prayers go out to the people who suffer from real-life horrors and dramas, such as the unspeakable wildfires that swallow everything in their path and their aftermath!
Hijackers take over a plane, not possibly knowing that there’s a woman on board suffering from a monstrous illness.
Unique, gripping, and if you ignore logic at certain points, a great R-rated entertainment. The film starts with a meaningful flashback that serves the narrative perfectly and builds up the heroine’s backstory. The fast-edited shots right before though don’t do it too much justice as we are meant to get thrilled about something we know nothing about. Then it starts pacing and finding rhythm even with the flashback within the flashback. Well, you are about to watch the following: a vampire with a kid, before fully turning, unleashes the beast inside her in a hijacked plane full of civilians and trained assassins! As audience, you just hope the filmmakers don’t blow it out of proportion and stick to the strong plot that the dramatic yet horrifying subplot supports so well. Does it, then?
Before I go into it, the first one who deserves a praise is Peri Baumeister. Her role is extremely challenging and she absolutely nails it. Her performance is terrifying as it is dramatic which is exactly what her character should be. Writer/director Perer Thorwarth and co-writer Stefan Holtz are next on the list for coming up and bringing to life this project. It is something that we most certainly haven’t seen before. Due to its uniqueness, the film takes a completely unexpected turn where everything goes. And indeed everything does go. There are bits and bobs that maybe don’t add up, but, come on, don’t go too hard on it. It’s trying to fool no one and the dramatic level matches the horrifying. Try to think of it as Die Hard (1988) meets Blade II (2002) and you’ll definitely enjoy it.
I know I very much enjoyed the diversity and, especially, the role of Muslims as, for a change, it breaks the stereotypes and portrays them as they can be in real life; scientific and/or heroic like any other religious or non-religious human being.
Stay safe!
P.S. My thoughts and prayers right now go out to the people who suffer from real-life horrors and dramas, such as the unspeakable wildfires that swallow everything in their path and their aftermath!
Two forest rangers go deep into a jungle where nature is an ancient force to be reckoned with.
Visually stunning with a convoluted, yet powerful message. Great opening sequence that warns: If you were not born in this jungle… Do. Not. Enter. You would never guess! They did (face slap). Well, just think of it this way: if they hadn’t, we wouldn’t have watched it, and I wouldn’t have reviewed it. So, does Gaia live up to its expectations?
From a filmmaking point of view, you get Dutch angles, 180 degree reverse angles, drone long shots, tracking shots… everything! While we are at it, Jorrie van der Walt’s photography is truly admirable. This will be probably the first time you watch a film with the aspect ratio changing four times throughout it to cover from the forest’s vastness to the heroes’ most claustrophobic feelings and deepest fears. Leon Visser edits the film with mastery, maintaining the continuity, battling confusion, and effectively building up the suspense. His work’s peak though is the hallucinatory montage sequences that create micro-narratives within the macro-narrative and makes us feel even more lost in a reality that has nothing to do with ours. Costume designer Mariechen Vosloo deserves also a round of applause as everything Barend, Stefan, and Gabi (later on), wear is handmade! Kudos to their amazing effort. Finally, Pierre-Henri Wicomb’s original music, the art department, the sound department, the visual department, the make-up department, and all cast crew deserve a tremendous recognition as, without their hard work, this film, like any other film, wouldn’t have been made.
Writer Tertius Kapp and director Jaco Bower have created a world in the heart of ours with plenty of visuals and strong opinions. Somewhere in between, Bower felt like constantly teasing us with Stefan and Gabi’s sexual tension and, for better or for worse, he left us hanging. Maybe, one of the reasons is the focus on the message. I am not going to go into it as you need to pay attention to Barend’s couple of monologues on civilisation. They are powerful as they are intriguing. Utterances like these, written in lockdown, leave quite a bitter taste because they carry dark and painful truths that came to the surface while feeling like living, as many people experienced it, in isolation. As per IMDb, the lockdown was announced a week into the shooting so most of the crew parted ways in different time, to different places. The film’s message expresses that loss we all felt – some more than others – and the aforementioned truths sting us, and the society we live in. There is a poignant accusation in the Biblical references and the way we have been functioning as humans individually but also collectively. There is a great resemblance to In the Earth (2021): https://kaygazpro.com/2021/06/18/in-the-earth-2021-horror-sci-fi-thriller/ and there is a lot to compare and contrast. I found Gaia‘s ending psychologically brutal, but depressingly befitting.
How this pandemic has affected our lives and consequently filmmaking has already started showing, but I have a feeling that its full force has yet to strike and therefore it’s still patiently building up. As much I adore dark, horror films, deep down, it aches when you know how many people have unfathomably suffered (especially) the last couple of years. The news on a daily basis broadcast from drama to horror and the child inside me wishes these genres belonged only to the cinema. I hope you are keeping well wherever you are, whatever you do.
A truffle hunter who lives alone in the woods returns after many years to the city that once gave him a reputation after his pig gets kidnapped.
Pig is the kind of film that when you know nothing about it you get a surprising cinematic experience. Well, you get that with most Nicolas Cage films anyway, but the narrative looks like Pig was written for Cage, and that’s it. Therefore: unexpected narrative + Cage = double the surprise!
I’m just going to give you a one-line summary and keep it short in avoidance of spoiling the crucial parts. The once best and hard as nails chef in Portland, who also had an extraordinary reputation in underground restaurant fights (???) and once disappeared into the woods resurfaces himself, raising hell when his pig gets kidnapped. I mean… WTF?! How does one green-light such a concept? How does one even conceive it to begin with? It sounds to me like writer/director Michael Sarnoski, a David Lynch fan, liked John Wick (2014), smoked a couple, and then put it together. Remember, everything is happening because someone stole his pig. How does Lynch come into play? The two Cage monologues. The first one sounds completely irrelevant – or is it? As if Rob listened to a different story and recited something from a different movie. Check Amir’s reaction that reflects the audience’s. Which brings us to the second one… the second one is all about Chef Derek’s (David Knell) close-up reaction as the story evolves. His reaction is priceless. To me, that is Lynch through and through and Sarnoski brilliantly encapsulates it.
There is so much I could say about this film, but I won’t. I’ve already said enough and it will just ruin the experience. The principal photography lasted 20 days and all cast and crew should work like a Swiss watch as the budget was tiny. And after they actually did, about an hour was taken out in the cutting room for Neon thought it was too long.
Definitely worth the watch! Will you find meaning, eventually? Only if you put your phones down, turn the lights off, and understand why Rob’s journey takes place. A journey explicated though his stories and attitude towards people and circumstances. But also… what the pig means to him and why. I hope you enjoy it!
Through the eyes of Sarah Fier, Deena experiences the horrors she had to endure and discovers how the curse of Shadyside really began.
The entertaining horror finale in the trilogy of entertaining horrors! Beware of what you read before watching it though! My beloved Ioanna urged me to watch it so here it goes. Have the same expectations as Part One and Part Two and you will not regret watching it – that is if you liked the other two. Let me start with the most important element. The similarities to 1978 – certain narrative juxtapositions – are meant to be striking to remind us that there are people out there who would still go after you with modern torches and pitchforks just because you are different than the majority. People who would ignore, even stomp on values such as diversity, inclusion, and freedom of choice. Therefore, the intention is there, that’s not what you need to be preoccupied with.
Now, the execution is what caused, from I’ve heard, all the unnecessary negativity. People who didn’t like the other two shouldn’t have watched it, to begin with. People who did like the other two, shouldn’t be moaning. Part Three refers to the same diverse yet enormously narrowed-down-Netflix audience that I’ve spoken before, so I fail to see what the same audience didn’t like. Was it the accents? The accents are not to be taken more seriously than the plot itself. The lesbian drama? Some people (or cultures) still take infidelity and homosexuality as seriously as back then. So, it’s trying. It really is. But I believe that the film’s message is as confused as its audience – consequently, is it the film to blame? And since I’m not really that trilogy’s audience, I just enjoy the confusion, turn it off, and go to bed.
Alas, the execution is that particular crowd-pleasing (?) result that, ultimately, is not Scream (1996), Friday the 13th (1980), or The Witch (2015). But don’t be overly alarmed, because it’s Fear Street! And it has its own character and it is the product of its era. Imagine you open a night club. Are you gonna play whatever song everyone is asking from you to play or are you gonna stick to the kind of music that characterises and defines your night club – and whoever the hell likes it? As a filmmaker, having to put up, unfortunately, with ignorant producers, that’s the dilemma. As audience, try to respect the hard work thousands of people have put into any project. And Leigh Janiak, and all cast and crew, have put a lot of work.
Stay safe!
P.S. Did anyone comment on the fact that maybe there is a connection to “Fear” Street and Sarah “Fier”? Food for thought…
The only survivors of the 1994 incidents, in an attempt to find a way to stop the evil, meet one of the survivors of the 1978 incident who remembers the horror.
Great modern, pop horror/comedy flick that entertains! Part Two resembles a lot more the 70s than Part 1 does the 90s. I guess cinema (technologically) evolves and it can’t really reenact the past. The vintage look seems to be just… gone. But then the atmosphere cannot fully be accurate either. Most likely, because very few from the cast and crew were alive or old enough to remember how people were talking or acting. There are film archives and means to find out but, as of yet, it seems that this accuracy will always be missing. I guess yet another reason will always the consideration of the audience. If it was ‘too 70s’ who would watch it?! Netflix seems to have established a particular audience already. It may be socially diverse but otherwise it looks quite narrowed down. Just in case you feel like casting stones, I have already surfaced and will keep surfacing exceptions that are shock to the system – especially its documentaries.
Focusing more on the film, as I kind of mentioned above, Part Two is entertainingly brutal! McCabe Sly makes a decent possessed/psycho ‘axe-man’ and Saddie Sink and Emily Rudd great on-screen sisters that face their personal demons way before the ‘axe-man’ starts taking heads off and everyone starts running amok. Overall, the sub-plot smoothly permeates the plot and both of them patiently escalate and lead to climax. The references to Stephen King (and ‘Shining’, for whoever got it), Friday the 13th series, and a couple of more that I cannot reveal, indicate the hard work that the crew has put into it to give us a good-feel, ‘throwback-style’ horror. Indicative, composers Marco Beltrami and Brandon Roberts have done an excellent job with the soundtrack, paying a great tribute to the one and only Jerry Goldsmith.
There are a few flaws that I could pick on as there are numerous strengths that I could point out (such as the sisters/climax scene). But I’m not gonna do it. Leigh Janiak seems to have a lot of passion for what she does and she does it well. Watch it, enjoy it, and… onto Part Three!
On ordinary day, a group of soldiers arrives from the future to warn and train people and send them to the year 2051 to fight.
Visually stunning naivety for the whole family! Past the inciting incident, one can spot a realistic approach right off the bat. An approach that will soon be replaced by a high dose of Americanism. I’m not saying this is a good or a bad thing, but I’m saying that it focuses on a particular type of audience. Why I focus on that more than other times? Because it’s meant to be addressing international audience. It’s about saving the world and not a particular country.
During recruitment and basic training, I didn’t really feel it. Stanley Kubrick set the example in 1987 and it seems that Hollywood is still struggling to evoke or balance emotions. As the first encounter with the aliens, coincidentally, John McTiernan set another example the very same year. Scrolling credits aside, the film is about two hours and ten minutes and it still feels rushed. Something a tad more comparable to Full Metal Jacket and Predator respectively, would be War of the Worlds (2005). Steven Spielberg first dealt with aliens in the masterpiece Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and, in 2005, he blew our socks off with realistically dramatic reactions to events deriving from science fiction to our deepest fears.
I’m gonna stop rumbling now though cause I sound bitter and spiteful and that was not my intention. So, I’m gonna end with a huge positive note. Director Chris McKay has brought to life Zach Dean’s script and the result is, generally, fulfilling. The film’s strongest moment is the closure of father/future-daughter relationship which is well shot and written and most definitely pays off. While at it, Yvonne Strahovski gets my round of applause here as she shines. It’s like she’s so proud of taking that role and she acts like it. She’s amazing. The Tomorrow War is a decent sci-fi summer flick with a number of standard Hollywood flaws but a great way to spend just over two hours with your favourite company – that includes your own. We may have not been attacked by aliens or saved the world yet, but we surely need a good-feel action to excite us a bit. Give it a shot. It’s worth the shot.
Stay safe!
P.S. You need to check these trivia about J.K. Simmons and his physique:
A disgraced journalist accidentally stumbles upon a girl that performs miracles that are of unholy nature.
Too fast, too soon, too much! Screen Gems used to know about how to build up horrors, but, as it’s Sony’s property, ends up producing standard, mainstream Hollywood, spoon-fed popcorn flicks. It’s like they summed up a bunch of clichés and put them together, making absolutely sure they didn’t miss any. What really makes you wanna keep watching is Jeffrey Dean Morgan. And if you have kept watching, it gets a tad better. Actually, you’ll get to find out what the Vatican considers a miracle and how they disprove it. Is that enough to keep watching tough?
My issue with the aforementioned standard Hollywood films is that they treat them as byproducts. Cheap meat coming out of the grinder for masses the studios consider unintellectual. Taking that into consideration, the studios seem to be taking no chances to explore different types of narrative. In The Unholy, the writing, after the inciting incident, gets solid, it’s just there is nothing to watch; nothing visually stunning stands out. Plus, all the information you want, the moment you want it is there. That decimates the suspense and leaves you with cheap jump-scares and nothing more. There are nano-to-low-budget films that break the rules or even invent new ones. It’s a shame to have millions to spend, be a mid-tier player, and take no risks. Why is this happening? As said earlier, they think that their audience is dumb. And that’s not nice. Horror fans are eccentric as they are insightful. Horror fans are resilient and are always up for the challenge. Studios should respect that and should challenge us with everything they have.
Oh, did I mention that CGI ruin horrors? I’m telling you again, the story is solid but the way plot unfolds ruins it and the CGI follow as a wrecking ball and smash it down. My comments are quite bitter not because of writer/director Evan Spiliotopoulos who does a decent job, but because of producer Sam Raimi who used to dominate the genre and now he has given in to Hollywood standards and, as I’m a huge fan of his, I expect so much more because I know he can do so much more. And I hope we get to see that sooner rather than later.
Oh well… At least, devout Catholics will get (even more) confused about faith and Church. That’s something.
A group of teenagers finds themselves against an ancient evil that has plagued their town since the witch-hunt.
More entertaining than it is scary, the inciting incident is, hands down, a tribute to the late Wes Craven and Scream (1996). Kudos to director Leigh Janiak for that and the good old (somewhat) 90s feeling. Then… we come to the rest of acts 1, 2, and 3. On a serious note, the film’s initial mystery is pivotal. What is it, the curse of the witches or the conundrum of postmodern American society? Keep that question in mind… but not for the film. More likely, for a painful conversation every time your turn on the news and see young American men, women, and non-binary people having lost their lives to another young person who just happened to get a gun in their hands. But it’s neither the time nor the place for it.
On a less serious note, the answer to the question is rather simple. It’s the witch, and that’s it. Fear Street Part 1 is a concoction of elements, allegedly from the 90s, which it isn’t. It’s supposed to be scary – at times – but it isn’t. Respectively, it’s meant to be funny – at times – and even though it kinda is, it isn’t really. Think of it as… 90s for millennials? It sounds a bit unhinged; a combination of two worlds that cannot really be combined. In addition, as much as I crave for diversity, I am against the forced one. The diversity that doesn’t benefit minorities, but sells more tickets – or increases viewings. Craven, Carpenter, Romero, Raimi, etc… would never see this film as anything that remotely resembles that era. Why? Because they weren’t making movies worrying about what the social media, couch warriors and keyboard fighters might think of it afterwards. They didn’t try to please the masses. Did you like what they did? Awesome! Didn’t you like it? Awesome, again! Until the next one…
Having said that… Fear Street Part 1 is just an enjoyable Netflix-level, comedy/horror flick that will makes you forget (some of) your problems with decent acting, editing, and directing. Admittedly, I haven’t read the books but the script is a tad lazy. Gimmicks, jump scares, questionable last-minute saves, and clichés, unfortunately, reduce the suspense as well as the thrill. Maybe I am not the filmmakers’ target audience and maybe you’ll find it fascinating. If that’s the case, or whatever the case may be, I hope you enjoy it; it seems that cast and crew have gone the extra mile for it. Know what you sign up for, and you’ll be all right.
Right after losing her husband, Evelyn needs to take her kids to a safe place and find a way to use their new “weapon” of defense.
Intense, horrifying, and breathtaking first act (Day 1) that captivates before catching up with the present. From then on, and after the first “hunt”, the pace slows down but the thrill remains.
The parallel stories unfold equally well and their suspense escalates effectively, maintaining the initial thrill. And for that the credits go to the film’s editor, Michael P. Shawver. The good editor controls at all times the film’s pace and rhythm and reveals what only needs to be revealed and not what you or I would like to be revealed. The good editor also knows the footage they have, weaves the story’s plot, and defines the final cut – alongside actor/director John Krasinski, in this instance. The problem with so many match-cuts and identical parallel action is that it makes the plot more sci-fi than the alien beings themselves. That level of synchronisation, potentially for more mature audience, ruins the whatever believability a genre like that can have. Regardless, Krasinski’s greatest achievement here is directing the actors. He proves to be an actors’ director and that shows in the dramatic sequences – that’s what I think anyway. Without drama there is nothing to be thrilled about or anyone to empathise for. Speaking of, the incredible performances from Emily Blunt, Cillian Murphy, Millicent Simmons, Noah Jupe and Djimon Hounsou make you feel for each and every one of them for everything that’s happening to them. Furthermore, pay attention to the excellent use of sound… or the lack thereof!
There will always be the question regarding whether certain decisions were stupid or not, but then, if not every, almost every classic horror deals with ambiguous or moronic decisions for narrative purposes. A Quiet Place Part II respects its audience’s intelligence and offers a post-apocalyptic sci-fi/horror worthy of its predecessor that, in just over an hour and a half, excites and makes you forget pandemics, lockdowns, increased number of cases, vaccinations, and ridiculous politics.
Four high school teachers go out one night and decide, as part of an experiment, to consume daily certain amounts of alcohol and observe how that affects their lives.
Rightful Oscar and BAFTA winner for the ‘Best International Feature Film’ and ‘Best Film Not in the English Language’ category, respectively! Actually, all 41 wins and 55 nominations are firmly deserved! Extremely well written, shot, edited, directed, and acted! Another Round is Denmark’s instant classic! The first act patiently lays the foundation for the character establishment and justifies the reason and bizarre philosophy behind the unprecedented experiment. Each and every one of them has a story to tell and a way to contribute towards it. The second act sets the cogs in motion and bears the fruits of their experimentation, shocking the audience with its pseudo-scientific data and the pseudo-realistic cause-and-effect results. Writing, editing, framing, directing, and acting work together perfectly, creating a dark, yet realistic effect that alcohol has on us but also the people around us. We get to experience through Martin, Tommy, Nicolaj, and Peter how life’s difficulties can cloud our judgement and mislead us to places that no human should ever visit, but, ironically, learn from them and come back stronger. Or not…
The third act is the narrative’s kind of unexpected culmination but most definitely the totally unexpected hero’s arc. There is nothing I can say without spoiling it so, it is up to you to watch it, connect the dots, and, above all, unleash your feelings. Just know that it’s all Mads Mikkelsen doing it.
Martin was meant to have a son and a daughter, with the daughter being the director Thomas Vinterberg’s daughter. Tragically, four days into filming, at the age of 19 she died in a car crash – the film was dedicated to her and was shot in her old classroom with her classmates. I can’t even begin to imagine how he completed it. Part of the film’s idea was hers as alcoholism has been having a severe effect on Denmark’s youth for years now. As Vinterberg put it, the film is: ‘a survey and exploration not only of alcohol usage but of the uncontrollable.’ Another Round is a must-watch and is no wonder why it became critically and financially successful. A lot of heart and soul has been put into it and is available for you to explore.
The stories of an undercover cop, a grieving mother, and a professor facing a dangerous dilemma interweave as they find themselves fighting, in their own way, the war against drugs.
Very well-structured and paced thriller from the very beginning. The inciting incident occurs in the opening sequence and from then on, every player is introduced in minutes, making clear of who they are and what they do. The tragedy that hits Claire, every parent’s worst nightmare, is expressed vividly and tearfully by Evangeline Lilly. Respectively, Armie Hammer, Gary Oldman, Michelle Rodriguez, Greg Kinnear and Luke Evans become the characters they represent and shine on screen. Indira Varma, and Mia Kirshner, even though having small roles, add to the film’s great cast.
Crisis unfolds like a bomb waiting to explode. A pharmaceutical corporate thriller, an undercover mission, and a mother hell-bent on finding what happened to her dead son, gradually, through meticulously paced editing, start blending into one story that pins you to your seats. All three stories are equally dramatic and thrilling so when they come together you get the full force the script intended to offer. Nicholas Jarecki, the man behind Arbitrage (2012) pens that script, acts in it, and directs it and manages to attract a plethora of the aforementioned A-list actors.
I’m afraid, I’ll have to address the elephant in the room. Due to Hammer’s bad reputation and accusations the film did not perform well but let me be clear… thousands of people have worked on this film and they deserve recognition. Don’t let one name prevent you from a very decent cinematic experience. Crisis tackles very successfully, if not the most, one of the most severe plagues to have ever hit this planet. And it’s a realistic depiction of the war I mentioned above. A war that, unfortunately, seems to have no end. I hope you enjoy it.
A film censor starts investigating a video nasty that awfully resembles the case of her little sister’s disappearance.
Hauntingly realistic psychological horror that crawls under your skin. And so does the dramatic subplot that drives the story to its unexpected turn. What is it that we see? What it is that we want to see? How do we perceive what we see? Why do we perceive it the way we do? What is actually real? Keep these questions in mind… but not just throughout the film.
For those who are unfamiliar with the logline’s term, “video nasty” is a colloquial British term regarding, mostly, low budget films that include, among others, explicit gore and pornography. Even though they did have quite an impact in the UK, the impact was not as severe as the film makes it to be. Having said that, Censor will have an impact on you. For a film that deals explicitly with gore, it becomes the definition of psychological horror. Adapting her short film Nasty (2015), in less than an hour and a half, writer/director Prano Bailey-Bond fully develops Enid’s obscurity, deliberately misleads you using restrictive narrative – Enid’s perception – and presents to you the darkest side of cinema that becomes cult for the hardcore fans and appalling taboo for the masses. I’m not going to divulge anything about the narrative, watch it and pay attention to the minor details that explain what happens in the end. It makes it somewhat obvious but not overly obvious and, to a certain extent, open to interpretation.
From a filmmaking point of view: the Dutch angles, the transitions between locations, but also dark reality and nightmare, and the match-cuts that signify/betray that dark, distorted reality… reveal the behind the curtains (unconscious?) side of our lives that we fail (or choose to) not to look. Ultimately, the film tackles the way we perceive films and the role they play in our society. Is it film imitating life or the other way around? Are films to blame for the release of our darkest side? What about for what we do to one another? I guess the answer can be also found in the role of art in our lives. Other than Bailey-Bond, my round of applause goes to all cast and crew who believed in her project, and especially to Niamh Algar who nails her part, Annika Summerson’s cinematography, and Mark Towns’ editing who has been behind equally amazing horrors, such as: The Ritual (2017) https://kaygazpro.com/2018/10/26/the-ritual-2017-horror-mystery-thriller/ and St. Maud (2020) https://kaygazpro.com/2021/03/01/saint-maud-2020-drama-horror-mystery/
An ordinary businessman is approached by MI6 and the CIA to help them prevent the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Shockingly brilliant! The first act’s light mood raises suspicions as to how can a horrific historic event, such as that Crisis, be approached in such a manner. The suspicions fade away in warp speed though as Benedict Cumberbatch is thoroughly enjoyable and no one can moan about his performance. Rachel Brosnahan, on the other hand, plays her part equally amazingly and together they create the illusion that thrill, British phlegmatic humour, and action will entertain you for the rest of the film… Wrong!
The light mood is replaced by a genuine Cold War thriller that, if you weren’t around at the time, it will make you feel its threat to humanity and how close our world was to be devastated (again) by a third World War. Both character and story development move the story forward, intensify the suspense, and keep you on the edge of your seats by brilliantly pacing and unfolding actual events that shocked everyone when they saw the light of day.
As Greville Wynne’s story is not well-known though, and for most people remains to be seen what will become of him, Cumberbatch makes sure not to betray that, and succeeds in doing so. His performance becomes a shock to the system, following the turn the narrative takes towards the worst. Merab Ninidze’s presence is also captivating, putting the viewer in Oleg Penkovsky’s shoes and imminent danger he’s in.
What I also found shocking upon reading about it is the fact that, on IMDb, The Courier has 1 nomination… 1 nomination! That’s it! I have been reading, writing, and researching on this industry for so many years, and I still find myself scratch my head regarding who’s getting rewarded and under what criteria. Weinstein is gone (good riddance) but it seems that the gatekeepers and/or festivals still have ambiguous criteria of selecting their nominees and winners. Don’t let that put you off though. The film opened all over the world on Greville’s birthday and Tom O’Connor’s script gives justice to the relationship between the two men. Ultimately, Dominic Cooke’s The Courier is a masterpiece and it is definitely worth your time. An absolute must-watch spy thriller!
While a pandemic has swept across the world, a scientist and a park ranger venture out into the woods to find a fellow scientist who may have had a significant breakthrough.
Brutal, psychedelic, relatable, but overly intricate horror that defies Hollywood’s conventions. From the very beginning to the first plot point one gets the feeling that the editing choices – the jump cuts – are eager to move the story forward. Move it towards where, is a good question. In the meantime, Martin’s secrets and, somehow, obvious dishonesty seem to be preparing the ground for something that will play a role when the twist reveals itself.
Scenes like the “stitching” and the “ritual” turn the sci-fi from torture horror into something more… folklore! As the psychological drama keeps blending with the gore, the suspense intensifies and one can only wonder how can this possibly have a happy ending. Before you find out what kind of ending the film is gonna have, the experimental chase sequence reveals more information and, in an intricate way, the combination of utterances and actions up to that point start making sense. Due to the film’s nature, it is difficult to go into it further without spoiling for you, so this is where I am going to stop.
Ever since Kill List (2011), writer/editor/director Ben Wheatley has been one of my favourite filmmakers of his generation. Kill List was his first and massively successful effort to switch from a realistically gritty thriller to a cult horror that defies reason. In the Earth is not far off, but its experimental, hallucinatory and psychedelic nature, at times, gives a whole new different vibe. The film’s photography (Nick Gillespie) and 80s music score (Clint Mansell) become assets to a convoluted, and head-scratching narrative that ultimately confuses, but I’ll dare say that it does not disappoint. I’ve heard a truck load of awfully negative comments and I believe that this is the result of false expectations. Small things that influenced me a tad negatively are sequences that involve the aforementioned secrecy and dishonesty that didn’t really lead anywhere therefore, it was just misleading for no apparent reason. Other than that, Joel Fry, Ellora Torchia, Hayley Squires, and Reece Sharesmith have a great chemistry between them and deliver amazingly convincing performances.
What you’ll make of it, depends on your understanding of the narrative. Pay close attention to what is said in all three acts. Our current pandemic is obviously the film’s source of inspiration, but its development is a Ben Wheatley original film with twists and rich visuals.
An old man who refuses his daughter’s help feels like losing the earth under his feet when his home and his people around him keep constantly changing.
A soul-destroying cinematic realism when your life comes crashing down. Based on the homonymous play by writer/director Florian Zeller, and co-writer Christopher Hampton, the cinematic adaptation does indeed resemble a play and the interchangeable locations 1 and 2 confuse as much as the restricted narrative dictates. The Father‘s suspense is not caused by the nature of Anthony’s condition; it is caused by the way it affects him and the people around him. What’s more, as it is an extremely sensitive subject, it is also caused by how it will be approached by Zeller and how it will be delivered by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Ultimately, as the narrative unfolds, the nail-biting suspense is caused by the heart-wrenching drama that raises the question, what will become of him?
The Father‘s full force hits you on two levels: One, on the level of having a beloved person suffering from it. In this case, you are the one experiencing their transition from one of the most dynamic person in the world and, maybe, your true inspiration in life to someone you wish they never become; someone who doesn’t recognise you anymore and… you don’t recognise either. Two, on the level of suffering it yourself. In this case, whoever you may have been in life, are not anymore. Disheveled, helpless, or “losing all your leaves” may be ways to describe it, but no one has or ever will be prepared for when it, unfortunately, happens.
Either way, no one should ever wish it to their worst foe but, fortunately, word has it that, around the date of this review, certain scientists may have had a significant breakthrough. I truly believe that all of us, no natter where we are in the world, however we look like, whatever we believe in politically or religiously, regardless of our sexual orientation… are keeping our fingers crossed and our hopes high. Remember, no disease has ever discriminated.
Excellent music by Ludovico Einaudi! Feel free to listen to the film’s soundtrack over and over again. Extra credits go to Cinematographer Ben Smithard, Production Designer Peter Francis and editor Yorgos Lamprinos. “Anthony”, is named after Hopkins himself who was the first and only choice for Florian Zeller. If it wasn’t for him, he would have adapted it for the French audience and even though I’m positive the experience would have been equally shuttering, it would definitely be different. Olivia Colman, Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell, and Mark Gatiss have a great chemistry with each other and deliver powerful performances. They are absolutely amazing. Sir Anthony Hopkins’ performance is the one though that in the end will break you, take your breath away, and, maybe, make you reevaluate your life’s journey from the moment it started to where you are now, to where (you think) it’s heading.
Dom and his “family”reunite once more as his unknown to everyone else younger brother has teamed up with a terrorist group to initiate a weapon of mass destruction.
Muscles, guns, explosions, supercars, and spies… all in the mix for a global audience of specific age. F9 did what most of its predecessors also did in previous years. It exceeded every unrealistic expectation! From The Fast and the Furious (2001) to Fast and Furious 8 (2017), whoever has followed the saga, has seen the gang first forming with the intent to steal and sell VCR’s and DVD players, and ending up driving against submarines. Each installment has been seen getting more and more crazy and the level of believability has been dropping exponentially. Now, it’s facing a free fall. A free fall of 2 hour and 25 minutes; the longest Fast & Furious in the franchise.
Where do I begin… Dom’s initial refusal to participate has been a cliché for a couple of decades now. One would expect that in the third decade of the 21st century writers would have moved on. Apparently not. Then, as the previous films did, this one also introduces a new weapon and/or technology. Like an uneducated Sesame Street, here, get to know about not even laughable rocket science and not even ridiculous electromagnetism. I’m not even gonna touch on the “hacking” parts. As for this type of slapstick comedy, some might find it funny so I’m not gonna go into it.
To cut the long story short, lets talk fast, without fury, about the driving. The driving and the chemistry between Vin Diesel, the late Paul Walker (RIP), Michelle Rodriguez, and Jordana Brewster is what made most of us fall in love with the first three or four films. Both of them are lost now. The sky-high level of implausibility, and therefore unfathomable CGI scenes, destroyed both. The filmmakers are now milking the cow, are competing with The Expendables (2010), and like most of these films, what massively irritates me is that they are undermining people’s intelligence. No film should ever undermine its audience’s intelligence. And that’s what F9 does. What was the amazing Charlene Theron thinking? A villain that didn’t even sweat. As if the non-existing, so far, Dom’s brother (John Cena) is not a gimmick enough, the rest of the antagonists are just shambles. Helen Mirren and Kurt Russel are there for the easy money, I get it. The rest… I don’t!
To summarise, maybe, and that’s just a speculation, if you are around 12 y/o you might find it exciting. But I hope you don’t so, maybe, Hollywood producers reevaluate, and learn how to respect their audience. By all means, if you are into VFX and the MTV style of filmmaking give it go. It will make you forget the unpleasant times we are currently experiencing, anyway. But know what you sign up for. Justin Lin is a respectful director/producer but goes for the money. I believe, after the franchise is gone, that we’ll see something amazing from him. Something that will beautifully surprise both in terms of character and story development. Finally, I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it: Michael Rooker is a great actor and should be getting more screening time in everything he’s in.
A mysterious man gets a job at an armoured vehicle company that transports money just to find the people responsible for a crime that cost him dearly.
Crowd-pleasing and entertaining, Wrath of Man makes a decent remake of the French thriller Cash Track (2004). Fourth collaboration between the actor Jason Statham and director/producer Guy Richie that proves to be time and time again a recipe for success – at least financial. What you need to keep in mind before or while watching it is that the film is not to be taken very seriously by any stretch of the imagination. It probably represents the exact opposite of the cinematic realism that film theorists argue about (for decades). Let’s start with with basics: No one heals and reaches peak condition that fast from multiple gun shots – if they survive. Also, no one achieves so many headshots that easily. Furthermore, no one would come up with that plan as it is likely to fail in more ways than I can count. So, deliberately ignoring the film’s unrealistic scenario, let’s focus on the positives.
Statham is still kicking a$$ which makes him the right man in front of the camera. Richie still finds intriguing, non-linear ways to develop the plot from the story which makes him the right man behind the camera. Holt McCallany, Josh Hartnett, Scott Eastwood, Andy Garcia, and Niamh Algar make great a addition to the cast (comment to follow on that). Finally, what everyone was hoping to be decent is actually more than decent: the action. Wrath of Man is a series of action-packed sequences that satisfy the neurons and neuroglia of the animalistic part of our brain.
I will never mind Statham not changing his accent. I live in Derby and he’s from Derbyshire so, I wouldn’t want him to speak any other way. I actually love it! Generally though, and that’s probably because I am not a kid anymore, I do mind the hero/ine not to have a decent antagonist or people surrounding him. Which is the case here. The film’s great cast (not just the ones mentioned above) is massively overshadowed by his presence, making him look he’s leagues above everyone else. His crew, the enemy’s, and the security company’s have nothing on him, something that exponentially reduces the suspense. Eastwood’s character had a lot of potential to be a great psycho and, consequently, great villain. That is not the case though. Having said that, the guys guarding the safe are tough as nails but their role is limited. Something else that would potentially make us empathise with ‘H’ a bit more is the underdeveloped drama he had to endure. Unfortunately, it took the back seat. As a last and trivial note, it’s interesting to listen to British humour, in American accents.
To sum it up, it’s very enjoyable, don’t get caught up in the details (like I do), and spend a couple of hours watching a funny and thrilling heist with a lot of shooting and punchlines.
Announcement: This is the last podcast before summer. More interviews and horror stories are coming in September so, stay tuned for more. Thank you ever so much for your support, and look forward to meeting you all up soon! Have an amazing summer, and always… Stay safe!
A group of mercenaries is hired to pull off a heist in a quarantined, walled off, and inundated with zombies Las Vegas.
A friend of mine called me the other day, saying: “Man, have you seen the Army of the Dead? Damn, it’s been years since the last time I watched something so wank”. He then added: “I mean, it’s like gathering every Hollywood cliché under the sun, putting it in, carefully trying not to miss any.”
Well, as a Zack Snyder fan I was going to watch it anyway, but I was not in a rush. Why? For the same reason I am not in a rush to watch any film interested in profiting from the pandemic. So, it’s not personal. The good news is that the beginning is like Watchmen (2009) meets Sucker Punch (2011) a bit. The bad news is that it’s neither. Actually, everything else is bad. Starting with the characters…
Everyone is a breathing, walking, talking cliché. Sex, sexual orientation, and race – most of the burning issues of today – have been exploited by typically low Hollywood standards for commercial purposes, an event that raises questions regarding who its audience really is. Don’t bang your heads against the wall though, the answer is: masses! The typically unspecified Hollywood audience that likes unrealistic people that are nowhere to be found in our world. A surrealistic misrepresentation of every human being out there. And that’s just the characters.
The narrative… Chaos! The absolute mess! Nothing is convincing and nothing makes sense. Everything you’ve seen and experienced before, you relive it with little to no surprise. Slapstick humour with some drama in between, topped up with some (quite decent I might say) action-packed sequences. In the end, which emotion stands out? None! It’s neither funny nor dramatic nor thrilling. It’s nothing! Two an a half hours of plot holes that include, but are not limited to (no spoilers): soldiers who escort a weapon of mass destruction and have no training whatsoever, a girl with no training whatsoever who delivers headshots like pancakes, the zombie head that could have been immediately retrieved and end our suffering, zombies moving faster than helicopters, people knowing that a nuclear is about to hit them and indifferently chat… the list is endless! Oh, and no matter what happens, do not, I repeat, do not fall for the “time” theory (no spoilers). It was way out of character and out of space. Pure buffoonery to cause you an extra headache! Do. Not. Fall. For it.
This is the worst Zack Snyder film yet! I do like Snyder’s style but Army of the Dead is atrocious and its atrocity has nothing to do with technical aspects such as the “dead pixels” or the too “out-of-focus” issues caused by Red cameras combined with Canon lenses from the 60s. The average viewer does not care about that. Instead, they care about not being insulted by the narrative. No one wants their intelligence undermined and this is exactly what the Army of the Dead does. It considers its audience as dumb as the Shamblers – not sure about the Alphas.
Final notes: Ella Purnell is a really good actresses but her character is unwatchable. Same applies for Dave Baustista who, unfortunately, is the only one that actually offers some drama. The only person I only rooted for though was Chambers (Samantha Win) who literally kicked a$$! Two more highlights were the “tiger kill” and the non-CGI zombies. But if you want to watch a great outbreak film then refer to Snyder’s directorial debut Dawn of the Dead (2004).
Food for thought: Twenty years ago, still at Uni, I discovered the term “Third Cinema”. This term defined for me the differences between the “First” and the “Second”. Focusing on the First… “Solanas and Getino’s manifesto considers First Cinema to be the Hollywood production model that idealizes bourgeois values to a passive audience through escapist spectacle and individual characters.” Please, keep in mind that the Hollywood they are referring to is considered to be leagues above today’s. For more on film history, feel free to read David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson’s: Film History: An Introduction (2003).
An ostensibly ordinary family man is proved to have certain skills when he becomes the target of the Russian mafia and the vicious lobby behind it.
Every time someone was telling me “it’s like John Wick“, I was replying “You know it’s written by the same guy, yeah?”. If you ask me, A History of Violence (2005) is a lot more similar to Nobody‘s plot, so it’s kind of one-meets-the-other kind of thing.
As for the film itself, admittedly, it’s very entertaining. Bob Odenkirk has a certain style of acting that transcends frustration and anger like very few nowadays can. One could argue that he actually acts/expresses certain aspects of his character. Regardless, he is the man for this job and Nobody proves that Hollywood can turn you from a lawyer who can’t slap a mosquito (Saul Goodman) to an ex-black-ops “badass” (Hutch Mansell) in no time. Fair enough! Nobody shows that his acting range is surprisingly wider than we all thought and the fact that he had been training for two years prior to the film’s principal photography to nail the part, speaks volumes about his dedication. Speaking of acting, I can’t leave the legendary Christopher Lloyd out who nails every part that has been given to him in his 46-year (and counting) career. Furthermore, Connie Nielsen adds to the cast with her talent and beauty, and brightens up every shot she’s in.
Ilya Naishuller, well known for Hardcore Henry (2015), shows once more that he knows how to approach hardcore action scenes, and, more importantly, Derek Kolstad’s meticulously written action scenes. Ari Aster’s Director of Photography, Pawel Pogorzelski, and experienced Hollywood editors Evan Schiff and William Yeh complete the main crew and give an extremely satisfying result that will make you want a sequel or, at least, a prequel of the film.
The plot holes are humongous but do yourselves a favour and leave them out. The action-packed sequences and phlegmatic humour definitely compensate. I hope you enjoy it and forget, even for an hour and a half, the dark times we are still going through!
