Peter Pan (2003) (re-watch) - 8/10
Hugely underrated flick. PJ Hogan's Peter Pan manages to capture all the magic and wonder of the 1953 Disney version as well as the psychological depth of its source novel. Like Steven Spielberg's Hook, it tries to get into its title character's psyche a bit and ask "What does it mean to never grow up?" but pushes it further to the forefront and without letting the usual trappings of a kids movie weigh it down. Jeremy Sumpter was also severely snubbed of an Oscar nod in this film.
Dracula's Daughter (1936) - 5/10
This film is a bit of a mess. The general plot and ideas are very good, but its execution leaves a lot to be desired. I love the story of Dracula having a daughter who wants to reject her family curse and be rid of her vampirism, but the problem here is that we don't spend enough time with her, as the film spends a lot of with this other jackass named Jeffrey, played by Otto Kruger, who is honestly a boring, stiff character. There's also a needless of wacky humor thrown in and even kind of a romance with Jeffrey and his assistant. All this just robs the film of any weight and gravitas it could have had. Thankfully though, Gloria Holden gives a truly fantastic performance as the Count's daughter. She's mysterious, conflicted, seductive, entrancing, lustful, yet sympathetic all at once. I just wish we saw more of her. Edward Van Sloan also returns and puts another sharp turn on Van Helsing. So yeah, it's not great, but still worth a watch, if mainly for Gloria and Edward.
The Disaster Artist (2017) - 6/10
This film was a bit of a let down for me. As someone who's read and loved the book it was based on, Franco's film feels very much like a dumbed down, simplified version of the story. The film more or less, sans the darker side of Tommy and Greg's relationship and goes for more of a typical buddy-comedy route. This might have worked if the film was a bit more heightened dramatically and if the fun, upbeat tone it had at the start was kept consistent throughout. Instead, the writers chooses to save all of Tommy's dickishness for the second half, which makes for a very awkward film that seems tonally confused with itself. It doesn't quite explore the complex dynamics of Greg and Tommy's real-life relationship, nor does it embellish itself enough to be a heart-warming underdog story either. It falls right in the middle and doesn't deliver on either end of the spectrum. Dave Franco also doesn't do much for me in the role of Greg, though that may have more to do with how he's written. He's portrayed as this one-note, overly shy, overly timid guy, and I just never bought him as a real person. How someone like him could ever get into the field of acting is way beyond me.
What does work about the film though, is Tommy Wiseau. While the film does soften him up quite a bit, a lot of Tommy's real-life character traits are still intact. Franco does a brilliant job conveying Wiseau's naivety, eccentricities, his sheer lack of inhibition, and even a bit of his dark, jealous side as well. The film never comes to a whole all that well but it is consistently entertaining. There are many scenes that are straight up laugh out loud hilarious, and even a few dramatic beats that work really well. I genuinely felt for Tommy at his lowest lows. So in the end, I'd still give it a mild recommendation, but more for The Room fans, as opposed to general movie fans.
The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - 6/10
I actually liked this one. At least, while I'm watching, that is. The thing is, while I love how the film cleverly makes fun of so many overused horror movie tropes, I feel like it could have been a lot cleverer. For me, it just relies far too much on plot contrivances and things not being properly explained, to the point where it dilutes a lot of the satire. Take for instance, the group splitting up. It's an overused trope in the genre, an excuse to show them all getting picked off one by one when in reality, no one with an IQ higher than room temperature would ever do such a thing. It was great that they chose to address it, but how they handle it with the technicians underground merely pumping some sort of magic gas to make Thor change his mind just feels really lazy. The same goes for a lot of the film, where Whedon and Goddard seem to just not care about explaining things well. I get that it's meant to be satire, but wouldn't it have been much cleverer had if the plot actually made sense? I usually don't like to complain about plot holes, as I feel a film's artistic/entertainment value is more important but here, it dilutes the experience a bit. Still though, the film is overall a fun ride, and I did enjoy watching it, if not thinking about it. So yeah, another mild recommendation from me, I guess.
reply
share
StoneKeeper (28419)
7 years ago
At first I tought you were talking about the movie Pan. Haven't seen the one you wacthed.
I agree with your review of Cabin in the woods
reply
share