Jump to content
  TPR Home | Parks | Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Instagram 

Movies, Movies, Movies.....


robbalvey

Recommended Posts

I just finished watching The Mist for the first time. It was a movie I've wanted to see for a couple years now, and the directorial credit was impressive; I must say I was rather disappointed by what I saw. First, I have to say that I love the premise of the movie. I think it's ingenious how the story is setup, taking an ordinary place that hundreds of people visit each day, but never expecting it to be a fortress. This allowed for some creativity as well as the reactions of an unprepared community to the onslaught of the creatures in the mist. It was the premise that drew me to the movie, but what killed it for me were the characters. Aside from the mediocre to simply awful acting, none of the characters were very interesting (well, except for the old lady). And as the movie progressed, the decisions the characters made became more and more stupid, even from the main character. The worst offender would have to be the evangelical lady (to those who watched the movie, you knew I had to go here). I get what her purpose was. I get that she was a representation of a false sense of control, and that people blindly following her was a means of grasping non-existent comfort; but the way it was executed was extremely annoying! For one, the lady playing her was probably one of the worst actresses in the movie, but the point the writing was trying to make was driven way too long, making her scenes unbearably lengthy and making the point of her character out of control. While I'm pretty sure she wasn't meant to be an anti-Christian tool, I really REALLY hope that other viewers don't think all Christians act that way. Finally, the ending really is one of the more clever (if not, depressing) twists I've seen in any movie, but I felt that it fell flat simply because I did not care enough for the characters, and the lead really did not sell it for me.

Overall, the premise, setup, set pieces, cinematography, and the old lady were great. The special effects and the score were alright. The characters' conflicts with the monsters were thrilling. The characters' decisions and conflicts with each other were really annoying, and was supplemented with dialogue that people would flash odd looks to you if you spoke it in real life. Since many of these conflicts were prolonged, it messed with the pacing. I must say, I expected better from the guy who directed The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile.

My rating: One and a half stars out of four.

Edited by VinTheAttendant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I agree with your review of it. I thought the premise was really good and the ending twist was haunting and depressing but that "evangelical lady" was obnoxious and the rest of the movie (and characters) pretty much fell flat.

 

Speaking of Stephen King...

 

I saw a recent post on Facebook that said they're going to make a new movie version of "IT" [rather than a mini-series]. I know a lot of people love the movie, but coming from someone who read the book, I just didn't feel the movie captured the story or the characters the way it could have. I realize it'd be really hard to make a 1.5-2 hour movie on par with a 1,000 page book, but I think the movie could be a lot better than it was. Most likely the new version would be more disappointing, but we'll see.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Down here we all float....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read the book and I've only seen parts of the mini-series, but it seems like the general consensus of the 1990 mini-series is people were genuinely terrified by it, or thought it was hilarious thanks to Tim Curry's hokey role (or thought it was horrendous). Whatever the case, the balloon motif from the series will be hard for me to take a remake seriously, unless it employs dark comedy.

 

I still talk in Tim Curry's voice every time I see something floating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched Session 9 based on the recommendation of a Redditor when I said I wanted a good horror movie.

 

Wow, that was just.. bad. Boring characters, slow plot (not in the good, tension-building way. I mean there's almost no plot progression for half the movie), bad sound design (particularly the mixing, and come on, they used cheesy stock screams during the tense parts), and the ending.. oh, the ending.

 

*****SPOILERS*****

A main character goes on a killing rampage for no reason, basically. His murders are supposed to mirror the session tapes of an asylum patient with dissociative identity disorder, hence the title of the film being the tape where the murders were discussed, but.. they didn't. They were incredibly vague, they could have fit any murderer's plot. The character showed no signs of D.I.D., instead just acting weird throughout the movie.. He didn't even have a motive to kill anyone! I guess he snapped, and that inspired him? I don't even know what to think.

*****END SPOILERS*****

 

I don't understand how this movie is getting 8-10/10's on IMDB. People call it a "smart, subtle" horror film. I guess just being set in an abandoned asylum is enough to make a movie tense these days? I'm not even gonna try to understand. I don't recommend this film, at all.

 

Edit: Huh. Guess I'm in the minority for this one, as along with you guys, the majority of IMDB's user reviews are in favor of the movie. Ah well, to each his own, indeed.

Edited by onewheeled999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I liked it as well, Chuck. I knew nothing about the movie beforehand, so I watched it for what it was. Sure, I was a little confused that it was actually the main character doing the killing and not something supernatural, but the suspense and atmosphere in the movie made up for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched The Thomas Crown Affair yesterday. Really enjoyed it. Pierce Brosnan was great as a smug, full of himself millionaire. The banter between his character & Rene Russos' was fun & clever, even if her acting was rather...ehh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the Right One In: Liked it. Went in expecting a horror movie, got a gorgeous, intimate love story with a supernatural twist. Would watch again, with improved expectations.

 

Outstanding movie...far better than the American remake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a free Redbox code yesterday and I can't pass up a free rental so I picked up This Means Ware. It was a fun movie. Nothing award-winning, of course, but it had a few good laughs. Chris Pine and Tom Hardy were pretty funny playing off each other (and not bad to look at, either), and Reese Witherspoon was gorgeous, as always. It was a chick flick with a little bit of spin to appeal to men as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Means Ware.

 

Do they use Corningware or Tupperware?

 

BAHAHAHA...that's what I get for not proofreading!

 

Saw Brave and What to Expect When You are Expecting this past weekend. Both were pretty good. Brave is one of the best Disney movies in a long time! What to Expect was actually really funny!! I loved J-Lo's character!!!

 

My husband said he's read bad reviews of Brave. But it's Pixar so it can't be all bad. I still want to see it and my girls definitely want to see it!

 

EDIT: Got rid of my double post. Oops!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently saw Chronicle and overall I liked it. There were some things that did annoy me, like the camera angles during a key scene of the movie. Overall, the first half of the movie was hilarious. The interaction between the main characters was awesome. Overall, good movie: 8/10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it's Pixar so it can't be all bad.

 

This is the truth!

 

I liked Brave, but it definitely didn't feel that much like a Pixar movie. The plot was very safe, and didn't take many chances (well, actually it did with some of its body humor, but it didn't take any risks structure-wise). The humor was more along the lines of slapstick instead of the clever mix of dialogue like we found in Toy Story. As you approach the climax, you can easily guess what will happen up until the end of the film. Also, I felt like it was trying to jam in as many lessons as it possibly could into its short, animation run-time, so at times the movie felt messy.

But the animation was FANTASTIC, Merida's hair alone is probably a miracle in and of itself; and the kids in my theater had a great time. And because I'm such a Pixar fan, I can't bring myself to rate Brave any lower than three out of four stars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I think one of the biggest problems is that Cars 1 was the least successful movie in terms of box office performance but the most successful in terms of merchandise sales. That makes it quite obvious that the movie wasn't made because people loved the first one, but because it was a serious money maker. Most people consider the first Cars to be the worst Pixar movie (before the sequel that is) and therefore a second one was deemed completely unnecessary by most. Now I quite liked Cars 1. The second, on the other hand, I found to be pretty boring. The story felt lazy at best. Pixar movies are marked by super creative storylines that really capture the audience and envelop them in a very specific atmosphere. Cars 2 didn't really do that for me and many others. It felt more appropriate as a straight-to-DVD sequel honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the best movie I'll see this year is Moonrise Kingdom,and there's nary a CGI monster or alied in it (although there are a few small explosions). It's a quirky coming-of-age story set on an island off the U.S. East Coast.

 

It's low key, but very funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I think one of the biggest problems is that Cars 1 was the least successful movie in terms of box office performance but the most successful in terms of merchandise sales. That makes it quite obvious that the movie wasn't made because people loved the first one, but because it was a serious money maker. Most people consider the first Cars to be the worst Pixar movie (before the sequel that is) and therefore a second one was deemed completely unnecessary by most. Now I quite liked Cars 1. The second, on the other hand, I found to be pretty boring. The story felt lazy at best. Pixar movies are marked by super creative storylines that really capture the audience and envelop them in a very specific atmosphere. Cars 2 didn't really do that for me and many others. It felt more appropriate as a straight-to-DVD sequel honestly.

 

I have another theory: It could be that Mater was the main focus in Cars 2, while Lightning McQueen was the main focus in Cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling the best movie I'll see this year is Moonrise Kingdom,and there's nary a CGI monster or alied in it (although there are a few small explosions). It's a quirky coming-of-age story set on an island off the U.S. East Coast.

 

It's low key, but very funny.

 

I've always been a big Wes Anderson but I felt he had kind of hit his peak with The Royal Tenenbaums. This movie does look promising so I might have to check this out!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I'm not a fan of The Royal Tennenbaums, but I did enjoy The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (I think it's the weirdest movie Bill Murray has ever made).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^I think one of the biggest problems is that Cars 1 was the least successful movie in terms of box office performance but the most successful in terms of merchandise sales. That makes it quite obvious that the movie wasn't made because people loved the first one, but because it was a serious money maker. Most people consider the first Cars to be the worst Pixar movie (before the sequel that is) and therefore a second one was deemed completely unnecessary by most. Now I quite liked Cars 1. The second, on the other hand, I found to be pretty boring. The story felt lazy at best. Pixar movies are marked by super creative storylines that really capture the audience and envelop them in a very specific atmosphere. Cars 2 didn't really do that for me and many others. It felt more appropriate as a straight-to-DVD sequel honestly.

 

I have another theory: It could be that Mater was the main focus in Cars 2, while Lightning McQueen was the main focus in Cars.

 

 

The problem is Lightning McQueen. Owen Wilson is about as generic as possible, And they hired him for his Voice?!!!? In Cars 2, there's a scene where you can tell he's just sleepwalking through the film. I think it was the scene with the French car. Mater says "She's a huge fan!!"

 

I like Mater cause; Say what you will about Larry the Cable Guy, He didn't sleepwalk through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^To this day, I still do not understand why people hate Cars 2. It is one of my favorite Pixar movies (After Toy Story 3 and Up). I'm guessing it is the spy part of it, but I'm not sure.

 

The original Cars was a great story about not loosing yourself as you travel to the top, and about finding out what life is really worth living for. It was a really nice movie with great visuals and good humor. It had charm, class, and style.

 

Cars 2 took everything built up by the first movie, tore it down and then went to Japan. what I mean is that the original movie felt like a Pixar movie. Within the first 5 minutes of Cars 2 you have cars killing other cars, cars with guns, cars with bombs etc.

 

It in no way resembled the first movie. Moving the focus away from Lightning McQueen was only one of the problems. The best thing about Mater in the first movie was that he added a perfect amount of humor. His character wasn't overdone as it was in Cars 2.

 

Also there's the just the content...it's just a cliqué spy story filled with a bunch of pretty CGI locations. There was no charm, the story was ridiculous, the amount of violence was insane for a G movie (How in the world did they manage to stick in a torture scene and still land a G rating!?).

 

It didn't fit Cars at all. That's why I didn't like it.

 

Not to mention...very little racing actually goes on...it's a Spy movie..it just doesn't work...

 

I've come to find that Pixar films centering around 1-2 main locations tend to turn out much better. It forces them to expand the story around the location, rather than just shuffling around the world....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use https://themeparkreview.com/forum/topic/116-terms-of-service-please-read/