MovieChat Forums > ebertfan91 > Replies
ebertfan91's Replies
[quote]Fans of the first two films hoping to gain additional insight into the monsters, their culture, their technology, or anything else will be disappointed. They are presented as forces of nature and Day One does nothing to expand the overall mythology. Despite transpiring in a big city, it works on a smaller, intimate scale: a fraught journey through a nightmarish landscape in which death lurks around every corner. The unique aspect of A Quiet Place – that the aliens hunt by sound not by sight – has become baked-into the DNA but it still allows the sound designers to have some fun and results in a few memorably tense interludes. This works effectively as a stand-alone film and part of a larger story, and finds a way to extend the Quiet Place concept without feeling redundant.[/quote]
[quote]Weird doesn’t have a strong cinematic texture. It feels like what it would become: a made-for-TV movie. The film’s production was on the cheap-and-dirty side and, at the time of its release (November 2022), it was thought of as being at the forefront of a new wave of low-to-mid-budget productions that would bypass theaters altogether to join the streaming revolution. Had Weird been released (and promoted) by a Netflix or Amazon Prime, it might have found an audience – it’s certainly good enough to warrant being “discovered” – but it ended up on The Roku Channel. Since few people have heard of this platform (which is free, although ad-supported – a huge annoyance), its obscurity doomed the movie to low viewership. Yet this tongue-in-cheek parody of the genre has grown more relevant as the number of humorless musical bio-pics continues to expand. Give me Weird Al and his Tall Tales any day over the grim glumness of Back to Black or the blandness of Bob Marley: One Love. Yankovic understands and takes to heart the maxim of never letting the facts get in the way of a good story.[/quote]
[quote]Kinds of Kindness isn’t a masterpiece nor is it even a great movie, but the inherent unpredictability in Lanthimos’ approach makes for a fun and surprising three hours. By changing things up every 50 minutes (or so), the director keeps viewers from becoming antsy. There are always new mysteries to solve, new questions to ponder, and new characters to discover. Kinds of Kindness may not offer the kind of full experience provided by Poor Things but it is a reminder of the responses a movie can engender when the director doesn’t play by the rules.[/quote]
[quote]When Inside Out 2 went into pre-production in 2021, it was under consideration as a direct-to-Disney+ release. Cost-containing measures are evident in both the cast and crew. A first-time director, Kelsey Mann (whose has previously worked a variety of jobs on other Disney productions) has replaced veteran Pete Docter (who retains a producer credit). High profile composer Michael Giacchino has been bypassed in favor of the less well-known Andrea Datzman, who is making her feature debut. Actors Bill Hader and Mindy Kaling dropped out when Disney wouldn’t meet their salary demands. Nevertheless, after seeing the final product and crunching the numbers, Disney decided that a theatrical release would be beneficial to the bottom line. Although Inside Out 2 is good enough to warrant a trip to the theater, especially for parents desperate for family-friendly entertainment, this isn’t one of 2024’s big-screen-must-sees. It will work as well on a smaller screen. It’s solid, middle-of-the-road Pixar, not quite as good as some of their better sequels but superior to the Cars follow-ups.[/quote]
[quote]As was the case with Frankenstein, Whale leans heavily into the “mad scientist” trope when it comes to presenting Frankenstein and Pretorius. Ernest Thesiger’s portrayal of the latter character is deliciously unhinged and over-the-top. Colin Clive has toned down Henry somewhat but he still gets to use a variation of his signature line: “It’s alive!” Despite having less than five minutes of screen time, Elsa Lanchester’s Bride entered Universal’s Monster Hall of Fame. The character became popular because of her striking look – the result of a co-collaboration between Whale and Universal makeup artist Jack Pierce (who was also responsible for Karloff’s appearance both in the 1931 film and this one). The hairstyle, with its lightning bolt effect, was based on Nefertiti. Lanchester played two roles in The Bride of Frankenstein, also portraying Mary Shelley in the prologue. For decades after making the film, in which she decried her contributions as “minimal,” she remained surprised at the popularity of the Bride.
Karloff’s Frankenstein monster would return once more, in Son of Frankenstein. Following that film, the actor decreed that he was done with the role (although not necessarily the series – he later appeared in House of Frankenstein as another character); it was subsequently played by Lon Cheney Jr., Bela Lugosi, and Glenn Strange (who tied Karloff with three appearances). The first two films are typically regarded as two chapters of a longer work, due in large part to their stylistic similarities and strong continuity. Both movies are excellent on their own but they work best when seen in concert – an approach that allows the full tragedy of the story to come into focus.[/quote]
[quote]Nearly as iconic as Murphy’s portrayal of Axel is the soundtrack. Featuring four singles, including Harold Faltermeyer’s electronic instrumental, “Axel F,” the album hit #1 on the Billboard Top 200 in June 1985. Glenn Frey’s “The Heat Is On” went to #2 on the pop/rock charts (with a year-end position of #19). Patti LaBelle’s “New Attitude” topped out at #17 but went to #1 on the dance charts. Faltermeyer’s “Axel X” reached #3 on the rock/pop charts but hit #1 on both the Adult Contemporary and dance charts. The final single, LaBelle’s “Stir It Up,” was a relatively poor performer, just missing the Top 40 (it peaked in position #41).
In terms of pure storyline, Beverly Hills Cop suffers from its tendency to prioritize Murphy’s comedic gifts over the narrative, but that element has enabled the film to stand the test of time. Well-plotted cop movies are a dime-a-dozen but productions gifted with Murphy’s talents – especially at this stage of his career – are a rare breed. Too bad about the sequels, though…[/quote]
[quote]Although Miller uses CGI, he relies primarily on stunt work for the chases and fights. The Fall Guy may be 2024’s most outward Valentine to the stunt industry, but Furiosa is a more accomplished production when it comes to their involvement. Both Hemsworth and Taylor-Joy do some of their own stunts, helping to maintain the illusion. Furiosa is also noteworthy for its use of sound. The throbbing, seat-rattling sound mix, which incorporates Tom Holkenborg’s discordant score, is reason enough to see the film in a theater with the best sound system. A large screen is a plus but the biggest bang comes from a kick-ass, well-calibrated set of speakers. Furiosa will lose a lot in an older, run-down movie house and even more in a conventional home setup. Take away the spectacle aspect and the movie may seem repetitive and underwritten. In a premium movie house, however, the immersion is so complete that viewers may require a short recovery period once it’s all over.[/quote]
[quote]As mediocre as much of the hackneyed drama is, nothing comes close to the level of abomination achieved by the tedious, pretentious, and unwatchable 10-15 minutes of “Satan’s Alley” that make it to the screen. Those who stick around after this endurance trial are rewarded by the movie’s lone good scene – the one at the very end when the movie recreates the opening of Saturday Night Fever. Thematically, this provides a bookend – it’s just unfortunate that so much of the second chapter is poorly conceived, poorly executed, and just plain bad.[/quote]
[quote]Planet of the Apes fans will almost certainly be pleased by this outing. The open question is whether casual movie-goers will be intrigued by this exploration of a post-apocalyptic world in which human characters are footnotes. Messages about inclusion and racism are easily identified but are no more overt than in the previous installments. The battles and a climactic action sequence are well filmed but Kingdom isn’t trying to outdo the other summer films when it comes to edge-of-the-seat viewing. In a strange way, I find that refreshing.[/quote]
[quote]Over the years, although Howard the Duck has achieved a dubious cult status (something seemingly true of many really awful movies), time has improved its quality only in the memories of viewers. Looking back through the haze of nearly 40 years, perhaps Howard the Duck doesn’t seem as bad as it did when it unspooled in theaters during August 1986. Taking a fresh look, however, dredges up the ugliness. This was a bad movie when it was released. It is a bad movie today. And it will continue to be a bad movie long after this planet ceases to exist. In the future, it’s possible that the character of Howard the Duck can be redeemed. No such accommodation could ever be made for Willard Huyck’s embarrassment of an adaptation.[/quote]
[quote]Therein lies the movie’s central flaw. Lucas’ original vision was to make Howard the Duck animated. The decision to move to a live-action approach was necessitated by Universal’s desire to get the movie into theaters as quickly as possible. And, as far as special effects had come during the previous decade (due in large part to Lucas), they hadn’t come far enough. Pretty much everything in Howard the Duck looks cheap and unconvincing, including the title character. And Chip Zien’s vocal “stylings” are flat and lacking in the necessary bite. He was hired because of his ability to synchronize his words with Howard’s beak movements, since the dialogue was recorded after the completion of filming. Robin Williams, who was the original choice, quit after a week because he felt unreasonably constrained. As for the live actors, Lea Thompson is as appealing as in anything she did during the 1980s, Jeffrey Jones is over-the-top (as was his wont), and Tim Robbins is godawful. (If not for Top Gun coming out the same year, he might never have had a career. His signature role in Bull Durham was still two years off.)
Despite numerous disputes with Marvel over the years, Steve Geber gave a lukewarm nod of approval toward the film version. Gene Colan, on the other hand, wasn’t so kind. Although he never saw the finished production (having been warned away from it), he knew enough from friends and family to offer an appraisal of sorts: “They made a film and it was a disaster. When [Hollywood] got their hands on it, they did something to destroy it…They had a good book. And what they succeeded in doing was wrecking it.”[/quote]
[quote]Performances are key in making the characters real. Kirsten Dunst is especially good as a woman who has buried herself so deeply in an emotionless cocoon that, when there are cracks, they make demands on Dunst as an actress. Stephen McKinley Henderson is the voice of reason who realizes this may be his last rodeo but is determined to see it through. Cailee Spaeny, who recently played the title character in Sofia Coppola’s Priscilla, faces the most difficult arc as the horrors around her shred the remaining vestiges of her naivete and force her to understand what she must sacrifice to become who she wants to be.
Alas, the ending cheapens the overall experience. Especially without a better understanding of how things got to that point and who The President (Nick Offerman) is, the cheesy action and silly narrative contortions of the final 15 minutes are a difficult pill to swallow. Garland fumbled the ending of his previous film, Men, and that same problem is evident here. He knows how to tell a story but can’t stick the ending. This flaw diminishes Civil War but it isn’t a fatal blow. There’s still enough captivating and disquieting material here to make the experience worthwhile. And this isn’t an easy movie to shake off.[/quote]
[quote]The passage of time has been kind to Batman Returns. Upon its initial release, it was greeting with a mixed reaction by critics and movie-goers. The box office, although buoyant during its first weekend, ultimately disappointed (resulting in Warner Brothers deciding not to offer Burton the director’s chair for the third Batman movie). Now, some three-plus decades later, this is generally viewed not only as the best of the Burton/Schumacher series but one of the best superhero movies of the century. Whether watched as an alternative Christmas movie or at any other time of the year, Batman Returns illustrates offbeat possibilities that were once possible in the superhero genre. The Burton aesthetic remains Batman Returns’ most memorable aspect and one reason why the film’s reputation has escalated during its history on home video.[/quote]
[quote]There’s less action in Batman Returns than in Batman, but there’s violence aplenty. Batman remains an elusive figure, mostly staying in the shadows. One of the contemporaneous complaints about the film was the lack of a focused, action-oriented climax but, in retrospect, that represents a strength, helping Batman Returns seem less like a cookie-cutter comic book movie and more like something with its own identity. Unlike the other two sequels, this one doesn’t seem committed to selling toys. In terms of marketing, the only major deal was with McDonald’s, which sold a Batman Returns Happy Meal coinciding with the film’s release. This caused a minor controversy when watchdog groups pointed out the inappropriateness of the production’s material for young children. Although rated PG-13, it skated close to the boundaries of an R with blatant sexual double-entendres and a matter-of-fact attitude toward violence.
Each member of the Trio of Nastiness brings something different to the proceedings. DeVito’s Penguin couldn’t be more different than the Burgess Meredith interpretation in the Adam West TV show. Although possessing a warped comedic edge, this villain is best remembered for the extensive prosthetics that made him frightening to some small children. Michelle Pfeffer’s catsuit became iconic (although she hated wearing it) and her character is the embodiment of BDSM. Latex and whips – what could be more obvious? As for Shreck, he’s Christopher Walken in his creepy prime. Burton later admitted almost not casting him because he found the actor to be intimidating.[/quote]
[quote]Tone is something Wingard struggles with. Although the best Godzilla movies have been serious endeavors with allegorical elements, the team-ups/smackdowns have tended toward high camp with WWE-style flourishes. Starting with King Kong vs. Godzilla, the Toho-produced movies grew increasingly silly during the Showa era. Had Godzilla x Kong fully embraced this tone rather than trying for things like “emotional resonance,” it might have been more enjoyable. However, while there are comedic/satirical aspects, the movie as a whole takes itself too seriously.
When watching something like this, I occasionally feel like deferring to my eight-year-old monster movie-loving self. I think that version of myself would have been a little bored by the lengthy periods of setup then delighted by the three big battles (Kong vs. King Scar, Kong vs. Godzilla redux, Kong/Godzilla/Mothra vs. King Skar/Shimo). But even for those who have an orgasmic reaction to kaiju confrontations, far too little of the film is devoted to them and the overreliance on CGI leeches away the immediacy and awe associated with the spectacle. This isn’t as bad as the 1998 Godzilla misfire but it’s perilously close. If there are to be any more Monsterverse movies (something I don’t favor), turn them over to Takashi Yamazaki. He knows how to do it right.[/quote]
[quote]Umberto D. is an almost-perfect slice-of-life. It has no true beginning and no firm ending. It fades in and fades out, affording us an opportunity to spend some time with one old man and get to know him and the world in which he lives. As with many older films, the value of this approach – a contemporaneous look at minutia that many other movies don’t provide – is amplified. Umberto D. provides a window into the past – an opportunity to experience an unvarnished perspective of things more often represented in sepia-tinged photographs. It’s often said that good films “don’t age.” In this case, the quality of aging is a strength.[/quote]
[quote]Note: The copy currently available for streaming at Amazon Prime is nearly-unwatchable and should be avoided at all costs. It appears to be a dupe of a pan-and-scan VHS copy that was originally recorded at SLP speed. It is virtually unwatchable. Other, better copies are available for rent and anyone who is serious about watching the movie is advised to seek those out.[/quote]
[quote]As a big-screen spectacle, Part Two exceeds Part One. The cinematography is grand and at times hauntingly beautiful. The battles are bigger, more raw, and more intense. The desert is a character in its own right. Hans Zimmer’s percussive score thrums and thrills. Villaneuve makes a persuasive case for why movie theaters still exist post-pandemic. Although the storyline is strong enough to preserve Part Two as a viable streaming option, much of the experience will be lost outside of a venue with a giant screen and sound-system to match. The film was made for IMAX and, although it will play effectively in generic multiplex auditoriums, this is one instance when the adage of “bigger means better” is applicable. Dune: Part Two is a spectacle to behold with an underlying arc that makes it more satisfying than a 2 1/2-hour bite of eye candy.[/quote]
[quote]Three major new characters enter the fray during the course of Part Two and Villaneuve gives them sufficient backstory and screen time that they don’t feel like they have been awkwardly dropped into an already-developed narrative. They are Feyd-Rautha, the psychopath nephew of Baron Harkonnen (and his would-be heir), who gets an entire 20-minute segment of introduction (mostly shot in black-and-white). The Emperor, name-checked in Part One, appears in the flesh in Part Two alongside his daughter, Irulan. Additionally, Anya Taylor-Joy has a small role as Paul’s sister, Alia, whom he briefly meets in a dream sequence.
The returning stable of actors - Timothee Chalamet, Zendaya, Rebecca Ferguson, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Dave Bautista, Stellan Skarsgard, and Charlotte Rampling – reprise their roles with conviction. The most impressive turn belongs to Chalamet, whose character faces numerous life-altering and personality-shifting changes. In a film where many of the important men and women represent archetypes, Paul is unique. Chalamet’s performance emphasizes not only Paul’s impetuousness and charisma but the growing tragedy that underlies the embrace of his destiny.[/quote]
[quote]Sadly, Madame Web fails to rise above its pedigree as a lesser superhero movie. It does nothing to convince viewers that there’s value to be found in a story not featuring a marquee comic book character. There’s a growing sense that Sony is overreaching by plumbing the bargain bin of the IP for which it owns the rights and trying to force-feed the public with characters like Venom, Carnage, Morbius, and Madame Web. We’ll never know whether a well-crafted, riveting Madame Web might have made this an early-year box office gem because that’s not what director S.J. Clarkson has delivered. Her vision – or at least the one Sony allowed to reach the screen – is a tired, infantile exercise in exploring the worst tropes of origin stories.[/quote]