It's always good to re-visit a classic.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is a widely beloved and highly influential horror-comedy starring one of the best comedic duos out there....Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. I first saw the film when I was much younger, and I remember loving it....but does it still hold up today?
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein follows a fairly simple plot, and that's the main reason the film is able to pack so much fun into it. Chick (Bud Abbott) and Wilbur (Lou Costello) are delivery men who are tasked with delivering crates that contain the remains of Dracula and Frankenstein's Monster to a wax museum. What they don't know is that both are still very much alive, and Dracula has some nefarious plans up his sleeve for Frankenstein's Monster, plans that directly involve Wilbur. Soon, with the help of The Wolfman, Chick and Wilbur will have to foil Dracula's plans and escape with their lives.
A nice added touch to the film is that two out of the three monsters are portrayed by their original actors. Bela Lugosi is Dracula, and Lon Chaney Jr. is The Wolfman. Frankenstein is portrayed by Glenn Strange, who had stepped into the role several times before. He is believable as the classic Monster here, I'd dare say I wouldn't have known it wasn't Karloff unless Glenn wasn't credited. The inclusion of the original actors helps to bring a much needed believe-ability to the monsters. The film also manages to throw in a surprise Vincent Price voice cameo at the very end....a welcome treat.
What also helps this film is the fantastic and rich atmosphere it is encompassed in. We are not in Abbott and Costello's world here, instead Abbott and Costello are trapped in the middle of the classic Universal Monster's world, and the whole film centers around them trying to find a way to escape it. It's nice to be able to step back into a world I grew up with and hold dear to my heart, it's almost like going back home in a way. Creepy, foggy marshes and old, decrepit castles help breathe life into the film.
While the film does excel at the horror elements, it always reminds us that this is a comedy first and foremost. Abbott and Costello are at the top of their game here, and while some jokes are a bit old they never fail to still bring a twinkle to my eye. The last act of the film is where the fun factor is cranked up to 11 as the rest of it is essentially one long, hilarious chase scene. It's great fun to watch these two comedy legends panic as they try (and continually fail) to escape the monsters.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein does indeed deserve it's status as a classic film. It inspired numerous directors and films, and the genre would not be the same today without it. With a fantastic and beautiful atmosphere, top notch performances all around, and a simple yet clever story Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein is not just a timeless film, it's also one of my personal favorites.
4 STARS
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
SMALLS CLOSES HIS LOOP WITH LOOPER
In 2044 time travel has not yet been invented, but in 30 years (the year 2074) it will be. Once it has been invented time travel is almost immediately outlawed, so the only people that use it are the mob. In the future, when they grab one of their targets they use time travel to ship the person back to 2044 where a gun man called a Looper will be waiting to kill the person and dispose of the body (why send it back in time? because in the future every body is tracked, so it's not as easy to secretly dispose of a body). Eventually, a Looper will have their future self shipped back to them to kill. This erases any trace of the illegal activities done by the person. This process is called closing your loop.
In Looper, we follow a young Looper named Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is living the enjoyable but lonely life of a Looper. When he is sent his future self (Bruce Willis) to kill, he hesitates and this leads to his Loop managing to get the one up on him. Now, with the Gats (trained hit men) on his tail, it's a race against time as he attempts to close his loop first and survive.
Looper is another phenomenal outing by the talented Rian Johnson. This time around he sets his sights on the time travel genre, and the result is something thrilling, surprising, and totally unexpected. He seems to have a knack for coaxing superb performances out of his cast, he did so in Brick and he does so again in Looper.
Joseph Gordon Levitt puts on another one of his best performances to date as the somewhat oily and punk-ish but still human Joe. Throughout the film, we get to watch as the character transforms from a man who is all about serving himself into a man that is willing to put others before himself (honestly, even when Joe was only looking out for himself I was still rooting him on more than the Willis character....maybe that's just me though). For the role of Joe, Levitt underwent a physical transformation so that he would look like a younger version of Willis' character....and the effect is pretty surreal. Willis' and Levitt's interactions in the film are fun and interesting. The scene where him and Willis sit down to eat at a diner will make your head spin in a good way. It can be hard to wrap your mind around the idea that these two characters are the same person, but Looper sells this notion beautifully. For me, Levitt's acting was what really sold me on the idea that he is a younger Willis. There are scenes where I paused and thought, holy shit, that's Bruce Willis....pretty cool.
Bruce Willis is back in Die Hard mode here as older Joe. Despite him and younger Joe being the same exact person, both couldn't be more different. Older Joe has gone thru quite a few changes in the span of 30 years. Older Joe has committed himself to a very specific goal while in the past (and yes, he is indeed stuck here....since Time Travel has not yet been invented in 2044, there's no way he can go back home), a goal that could easily change the shape of the future. Bruce Willis plays a good monster here (not gonna say much else), and words cannot describe my joy at seeing him back with a machine gun in his hands.
Emily Blunt plays Sara, a single mother that agrees to hide young Joe from the Gats. She has a fluent and believable southern accent, and is beautiful if not a bit old. She puts on a pretty great performance here (quite possibly one of the best of her career) as a single mother that will do anything to protect her son. She is a believable character, and I enjoyed getting to spend some time with her.
Pierce Gagnon plays Cid, the 5 year old son of Sara. Pierce announces his arrival into the acting world with an explosion of awesomeness (yes, I know that's not a real word, get off my back). He acts with a grown up maturity that really surprised me. Cid has a special ability, and the scenes dedicated to what he can do with this are thrilling, shocking, and frightening in all the right ways. He is creepy, but adorable and human too. I hope to see this kid cast in more films.
Cast in a supporting role is Jeff Daniels as Abe, a man from the future that is sent back to manage the Loopers. He plays a sizable role but isn't in the film much. He acts as a fatherly figure to the Loopers, but also is a man to be feared. Noah Segan plays Kid Blue, one of the Gats that is on the hunt for both Joe's. He may be another supporting role, but he is a fun character to watch as he is continually beat up and fucks up his job throughout most of the film. Piper Perabo also appears in a few scenes as Suzie, a kind hearted stripper.
Another aspect of this film I've got to mention is the superb soundtrack by Nathan Johnson. The score here perfectly complements the film. It's quite unlike anything I have ever heard, as Nathan actually walked around New Orleans recording random sounds and objects and then incorporating them into the score itself. Safe to say, the soundtrack is well worth a buy on iTunes or at your local CD store.
I also enjoyed the vision of the future the film has. In Looper, 2044 is a mess, most people live in poverty and only a select few are wealthy....including Loopers. It's interesting to watch JGL riding around in a fancy sports car, zooming past poor and starving citizens. The future looks very much like today, except for a few things like hover bikes, new cool looking trains, and a mutation that leads to a small percent of the population having a special ability.
The trailer for Looper (and my plot synopsis) would have you believe that Looper is primarily a film about time travel, but in reality the story here is so much deeper than that. Looper has elements of sci-fi, classic gangster films, noir, time travel epics, action/adventure films, and the list goes on and on and on (and what's more, it excels beautifully at each of these elements...you can tell Rian had a lot of love for these genres and that he did his research). Looper, however, isn't just satisfied with showing you a good time...it wants you to think too, to think about the consequences and effects of time travel (the ideas the film has about time travel and it's effects are fun and intriguing), about the character's motivations, what is right/what is wrong, and so on and so forth. While Looper's scenes of action (as teased in the trailer) are bombastic and thrilling, most of the film is focused on these characters we are introduced to and how they grow throughout the course of the film.
Looper is a film that's hard to define, there are so many different genres mixed into this beautiful little thriller that it defies definition. I guess I could best sum Looper up as a thinking man's sci-fi action film. Looper is an elegant film that's also some of the most fun you're likely to have in a movie theater this year. Expect action, mind-bending ideas, time travel, gun play, sci-fi goodness, nudity, and much much more. I could go on talking about this film all day, but I've got to wrap this review up sometime, so I'll end with this: Looper is a masterfully crafted film that is well worth your time and money, it's easily one of the best of the year.
4.5 STARS
In Looper, we follow a young Looper named Joe (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who is living the enjoyable but lonely life of a Looper. When he is sent his future self (Bruce Willis) to kill, he hesitates and this leads to his Loop managing to get the one up on him. Now, with the Gats (trained hit men) on his tail, it's a race against time as he attempts to close his loop first and survive.
Looper is another phenomenal outing by the talented Rian Johnson. This time around he sets his sights on the time travel genre, and the result is something thrilling, surprising, and totally unexpected. He seems to have a knack for coaxing superb performances out of his cast, he did so in Brick and he does so again in Looper.
Joseph Gordon Levitt puts on another one of his best performances to date as the somewhat oily and punk-ish but still human Joe. Throughout the film, we get to watch as the character transforms from a man who is all about serving himself into a man that is willing to put others before himself (honestly, even when Joe was only looking out for himself I was still rooting him on more than the Willis character....maybe that's just me though). For the role of Joe, Levitt underwent a physical transformation so that he would look like a younger version of Willis' character....and the effect is pretty surreal. Willis' and Levitt's interactions in the film are fun and interesting. The scene where him and Willis sit down to eat at a diner will make your head spin in a good way. It can be hard to wrap your mind around the idea that these two characters are the same person, but Looper sells this notion beautifully. For me, Levitt's acting was what really sold me on the idea that he is a younger Willis. There are scenes where I paused and thought, holy shit, that's Bruce Willis....pretty cool.
Bruce Willis is back in Die Hard mode here as older Joe. Despite him and younger Joe being the same exact person, both couldn't be more different. Older Joe has gone thru quite a few changes in the span of 30 years. Older Joe has committed himself to a very specific goal while in the past (and yes, he is indeed stuck here....since Time Travel has not yet been invented in 2044, there's no way he can go back home), a goal that could easily change the shape of the future. Bruce Willis plays a good monster here (not gonna say much else), and words cannot describe my joy at seeing him back with a machine gun in his hands.
Emily Blunt plays Sara, a single mother that agrees to hide young Joe from the Gats. She has a fluent and believable southern accent, and is beautiful if not a bit old. She puts on a pretty great performance here (quite possibly one of the best of her career) as a single mother that will do anything to protect her son. She is a believable character, and I enjoyed getting to spend some time with her.
Pierce Gagnon plays Cid, the 5 year old son of Sara. Pierce announces his arrival into the acting world with an explosion of awesomeness (yes, I know that's not a real word, get off my back). He acts with a grown up maturity that really surprised me. Cid has a special ability, and the scenes dedicated to what he can do with this are thrilling, shocking, and frightening in all the right ways. He is creepy, but adorable and human too. I hope to see this kid cast in more films.
Cast in a supporting role is Jeff Daniels as Abe, a man from the future that is sent back to manage the Loopers. He plays a sizable role but isn't in the film much. He acts as a fatherly figure to the Loopers, but also is a man to be feared. Noah Segan plays Kid Blue, one of the Gats that is on the hunt for both Joe's. He may be another supporting role, but he is a fun character to watch as he is continually beat up and fucks up his job throughout most of the film. Piper Perabo also appears in a few scenes as Suzie, a kind hearted stripper.
Another aspect of this film I've got to mention is the superb soundtrack by Nathan Johnson. The score here perfectly complements the film. It's quite unlike anything I have ever heard, as Nathan actually walked around New Orleans recording random sounds and objects and then incorporating them into the score itself. Safe to say, the soundtrack is well worth a buy on iTunes or at your local CD store.
I also enjoyed the vision of the future the film has. In Looper, 2044 is a mess, most people live in poverty and only a select few are wealthy....including Loopers. It's interesting to watch JGL riding around in a fancy sports car, zooming past poor and starving citizens. The future looks very much like today, except for a few things like hover bikes, new cool looking trains, and a mutation that leads to a small percent of the population having a special ability.
The trailer for Looper (and my plot synopsis) would have you believe that Looper is primarily a film about time travel, but in reality the story here is so much deeper than that. Looper has elements of sci-fi, classic gangster films, noir, time travel epics, action/adventure films, and the list goes on and on and on (and what's more, it excels beautifully at each of these elements...you can tell Rian had a lot of love for these genres and that he did his research). Looper, however, isn't just satisfied with showing you a good time...it wants you to think too, to think about the consequences and effects of time travel (the ideas the film has about time travel and it's effects are fun and intriguing), about the character's motivations, what is right/what is wrong, and so on and so forth. While Looper's scenes of action (as teased in the trailer) are bombastic and thrilling, most of the film is focused on these characters we are introduced to and how they grow throughout the course of the film.
Looper is a film that's hard to define, there are so many different genres mixed into this beautiful little thriller that it defies definition. I guess I could best sum Looper up as a thinking man's sci-fi action film. Looper is an elegant film that's also some of the most fun you're likely to have in a movie theater this year. Expect action, mind-bending ideas, time travel, gun play, sci-fi goodness, nudity, and much much more. I could go on talking about this film all day, but I've got to wrap this review up sometime, so I'll end with this: Looper is a masterfully crafted film that is well worth your time and money, it's easily one of the best of the year.
4.5 STARS
Thursday, September 27, 2012
SMALLS GETS HIGH ON BRICK
In preparation for Rian Johnson's Looper, I decided to re-watch his directorial debut, a different little masterpiece known as Brick.
In Brick, we follow Branden (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a smart high-school loner. After receiving a frantic call from his ex-girlfriend Emily (Emilie de Ravin), Branden begins his own investigation in an attempt to find out what had her so panicked. He eventually finds her dead body outside a tunnel. Angry and confused, he delves even deeper into the mystery and soon finds himself infiltrating the different social structures of high school before eventually winding up in a drug ring.
All the actors do a pretty good job, but make no mistake, Brick is Jospeh Gordon Levitt's film and he shines here like it's nobodies business. This, in my opinion, is the best performance he has given so far. He plays Branden as a quiet, incredibly smart, and angry loner that keeps his emotions to himself. For most of the film, he is constantly thinking, attempting to figure things out but he puts forth a blank expression, almost as if the events he's witnessed have made him numb or that he's afraid to let anyone too close to him. He also gets to show off his fighting skills here as several scenes call for him to brawl with other characters, and he does a more than impressive job. Characters do try to trick Branden throughout the film, but he always has the upper hand. Branden is the classic noir detective, except he's a teenager. Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the best actors of our generation, and he proves that here time and time again.
Brick is essentially a throw back to the Noir's of old, except that it's been polished up for today. The setting is a new one( that of a high school. I really dug the choice to set it here as I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Noir in high school before. The film also perfectly captures the different social structures in high school and what life at that age can be like...except it adds an adult flavor into the mix that makes for a more mature feel), the characters are new renditions of classic noir staples (the detective, the detective's info man, the femme fatale, the authority figure which in this film is the vice principal of the High School...really neat touch, etc), and the story is classic noir all the way.
The only thing that may throw viewers for a loop is the fancy lingo used in Brick. I myself did have some trouble keeping up with what all the slang meant, but I learned to roll with the punches and by the end I could do a decent job at figuring out what the characters were saying. Remember, if you do have trouble making out what characters are saying you can always switch on subtitles...so that helps.
Noir is a dying genre, so I'm really glad we have a film like Brick that isn't afraid to stand up for Noir and remind us how great of a genre it really is. Brick crafts an intricate, intriguing story, fun characters, and a world built around high school. It's a different little masterpiece that is easily one of the best noir films out there. If you're a fan of Noir, you should see Brick....if not, see it anyway for Joseph Gordon Levitt's stand up and cheer worthy performance (he really is at his absolute best). Brick is a cool, different film that only a fool would pass up.
4.5 STARS
In Brick, we follow Branden (Joseph Gordon Levitt), a smart high-school loner. After receiving a frantic call from his ex-girlfriend Emily (Emilie de Ravin), Branden begins his own investigation in an attempt to find out what had her so panicked. He eventually finds her dead body outside a tunnel. Angry and confused, he delves even deeper into the mystery and soon finds himself infiltrating the different social structures of high school before eventually winding up in a drug ring.
All the actors do a pretty good job, but make no mistake, Brick is Jospeh Gordon Levitt's film and he shines here like it's nobodies business. This, in my opinion, is the best performance he has given so far. He plays Branden as a quiet, incredibly smart, and angry loner that keeps his emotions to himself. For most of the film, he is constantly thinking, attempting to figure things out but he puts forth a blank expression, almost as if the events he's witnessed have made him numb or that he's afraid to let anyone too close to him. He also gets to show off his fighting skills here as several scenes call for him to brawl with other characters, and he does a more than impressive job. Characters do try to trick Branden throughout the film, but he always has the upper hand. Branden is the classic noir detective, except he's a teenager. Joseph Gordon Levitt is one of the best actors of our generation, and he proves that here time and time again.
Brick is essentially a throw back to the Noir's of old, except that it's been polished up for today. The setting is a new one( that of a high school. I really dug the choice to set it here as I'm pretty sure I've never seen a Noir in high school before. The film also perfectly captures the different social structures in high school and what life at that age can be like...except it adds an adult flavor into the mix that makes for a more mature feel), the characters are new renditions of classic noir staples (the detective, the detective's info man, the femme fatale, the authority figure which in this film is the vice principal of the High School...really neat touch, etc), and the story is classic noir all the way.
The only thing that may throw viewers for a loop is the fancy lingo used in Brick. I myself did have some trouble keeping up with what all the slang meant, but I learned to roll with the punches and by the end I could do a decent job at figuring out what the characters were saying. Remember, if you do have trouble making out what characters are saying you can always switch on subtitles...so that helps.
Noir is a dying genre, so I'm really glad we have a film like Brick that isn't afraid to stand up for Noir and remind us how great of a genre it really is. Brick crafts an intricate, intriguing story, fun characters, and a world built around high school. It's a different little masterpiece that is easily one of the best noir films out there. If you're a fan of Noir, you should see Brick....if not, see it anyway for Joseph Gordon Levitt's stand up and cheer worthy performance (he really is at his absolute best). Brick is a cool, different film that only a fool would pass up.
4.5 STARS
Monday, September 24, 2012
FRIGHT FEST REVIEW: BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA
I have had the great pleasure of reading the famed Gothic horror novel Dracula (in my opinion the best horror novel you will EVER read), while it was a while ago I remember enough about it to be able to more or less gauge how accurate to the source material a film bearing the Dracula name is. The original Dracula starring Bela Lugosi is not very accurate, although it is quite good and fun and the film I'm going to be reviewing today, while bearing Bram Stoker's name in front of the title, still veers a good deal away from the source material.
Bram Stoker's Dracula essentially follows the same plot as the original classic film, this time however it chooses to portray Dracula in a more sympathetic light and focuses more on Mina's and his relationship. While I do not think this was a wise choice, I must admit that it does lead to quite an epic finale as the viewer is torn between Van Helsing and crew and Dracula and Mina...who are really the bad guys? Is anyone here truly innocent? Disturbing questions that the film never truly answers.
Gary Oldman completely disappears into the role of Dracula. I have always considered him as one of the strongest actors you could ever come across. I can't recall one weak performance of his that I have seen, and it's no different here. He isn't playing Dracula ,he IS Dracula (the film spends a good 5 minutes or so expanding on his backstory, partly using the historical Vlad the Impaler's story and a completely fictional one that explains the Count's fear/hatred of crosses, immortality, and appetite for blood. An unnecessary but cool touch). Oldman manages to make the infamous count sympathetic but completely terrifying. i often had conflicting emotions about him, I absolutely hated him but I did understand his pain and torment....it's got to suck to be him you must admit.
Anthony Hopkins portrays the famed vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing. Hopkins melts into his character here, putting on a performance that easily rivals Oldman's. His version of Van Helsing is eccentric and slightly mad, but still heroic nontheless. He is easily one of the more memorable incarnations of the Van Helsing character put to screen. I wasn't expecting this strong of a performance out of him, but damn if he doesn't nail the role.
Keanu Reeves plays Jonathan Harker, the fiance of Mina, who has a significantly downsized role here. He is still essential to the plot, but doesn't have as much impact as he does in the novel. Keanu Reeves surprised me, most think of him as Ted from Bill and Ted, but that association is erased here as he actually acts his heart out for a change and shows that, with the right director, he can really perform. This is easily one of his best and most impressive roles to date. As Reeves would say: Woah.
Sadie Frost plays the role of the seductive Lucy, who is taken in by Dracula's charm and is the first to fall victim to his ways. She's good enough I suppose, but by far the most impressive part of her performance is (are?) her breasts. Looking at her IMDB page, it wouldn't look like she's really been in nothing else noteworthy, and I'm honestly surprised. That said, she still gets the job done and she's pretty good at adding some sex into the film.
Winona Ryder portrays the doomed love interest Mina. This is another casting choice I don't really agree with, she does perfectly fine here but she's just too weird to play the kind and confused Mina. I didn't really sympathize with her character, and the places the plot decides to take her doesn't help matters either (a reincarnated love interest for Dracula.....pretty sure that wasn't in the novel).
I do like how the theme of sexuality takes center stage in this adaptation. Even in the source material, Dracula was a sex symbol and sexuality played a very huge role in the proceedings, like it does here. I also dig the new versions of the Brides here, completely alluring, sexy as hell, but completely terrifying. their scenes are fantastic.
Francis Ford Coppola directs this outing, and is it no surprise the film ends up being a success under his caring hands? The film is very surrealistic (almost dream like), the atmosphere is thick, and the sets and costumes are superb. It feels like an old fashioned horror film with a twist, except it's really not a horror film this time around...it's actually more of a perverted love story/triangle.
While Bram Stoker's Dracula is more faithful to the source material than the original classic was, it still differs greatly in what it chooses to focus on and it's portrayal of the famed count. While some of the choices this film chooses to make did piss me off a bit (especially the last scene), I still think I will continue to return to this film for it's fantastic performances and stunning artistic design. Bram Stoker's Dracula, despite some questionable decisions, still awakens as a good success.
4/5 STARS
Bram Stoker's Dracula essentially follows the same plot as the original classic film, this time however it chooses to portray Dracula in a more sympathetic light and focuses more on Mina's and his relationship. While I do not think this was a wise choice, I must admit that it does lead to quite an epic finale as the viewer is torn between Van Helsing and crew and Dracula and Mina...who are really the bad guys? Is anyone here truly innocent? Disturbing questions that the film never truly answers.
Gary Oldman completely disappears into the role of Dracula. I have always considered him as one of the strongest actors you could ever come across. I can't recall one weak performance of his that I have seen, and it's no different here. He isn't playing Dracula ,he IS Dracula (the film spends a good 5 minutes or so expanding on his backstory, partly using the historical Vlad the Impaler's story and a completely fictional one that explains the Count's fear/hatred of crosses, immortality, and appetite for blood. An unnecessary but cool touch). Oldman manages to make the infamous count sympathetic but completely terrifying. i often had conflicting emotions about him, I absolutely hated him but I did understand his pain and torment....it's got to suck to be him you must admit.
Anthony Hopkins portrays the famed vampire killer Abraham Van Helsing. Hopkins melts into his character here, putting on a performance that easily rivals Oldman's. His version of Van Helsing is eccentric and slightly mad, but still heroic nontheless. He is easily one of the more memorable incarnations of the Van Helsing character put to screen. I wasn't expecting this strong of a performance out of him, but damn if he doesn't nail the role.
Keanu Reeves plays Jonathan Harker, the fiance of Mina, who has a significantly downsized role here. He is still essential to the plot, but doesn't have as much impact as he does in the novel. Keanu Reeves surprised me, most think of him as Ted from Bill and Ted, but that association is erased here as he actually acts his heart out for a change and shows that, with the right director, he can really perform. This is easily one of his best and most impressive roles to date. As Reeves would say: Woah.
Sadie Frost plays the role of the seductive Lucy, who is taken in by Dracula's charm and is the first to fall victim to his ways. She's good enough I suppose, but by far the most impressive part of her performance is (are?) her breasts. Looking at her IMDB page, it wouldn't look like she's really been in nothing else noteworthy, and I'm honestly surprised. That said, she still gets the job done and she's pretty good at adding some sex into the film.
Winona Ryder portrays the doomed love interest Mina. This is another casting choice I don't really agree with, she does perfectly fine here but she's just too weird to play the kind and confused Mina. I didn't really sympathize with her character, and the places the plot decides to take her doesn't help matters either (a reincarnated love interest for Dracula.....pretty sure that wasn't in the novel).
I do like how the theme of sexuality takes center stage in this adaptation. Even in the source material, Dracula was a sex symbol and sexuality played a very huge role in the proceedings, like it does here. I also dig the new versions of the Brides here, completely alluring, sexy as hell, but completely terrifying. their scenes are fantastic.
Francis Ford Coppola directs this outing, and is it no surprise the film ends up being a success under his caring hands? The film is very surrealistic (almost dream like), the atmosphere is thick, and the sets and costumes are superb. It feels like an old fashioned horror film with a twist, except it's really not a horror film this time around...it's actually more of a perverted love story/triangle.
While Bram Stoker's Dracula is more faithful to the source material than the original classic was, it still differs greatly in what it chooses to focus on and it's portrayal of the famed count. While some of the choices this film chooses to make did piss me off a bit (especially the last scene), I still think I will continue to return to this film for it's fantastic performances and stunning artistic design. Bram Stoker's Dracula, despite some questionable decisions, still awakens as a good success.
4/5 STARS
SMALLS' FRIGHT FEST AWAKENS EARLY THIS YEAR
The creatures of the night are restless this year, so allow me to throw open the crypt and unleash them one week before the haunting season begins, This year Fright Fest starts early!
Good evening, foolish mortals, and welcome to Smalls' 3rd Annual Fright Fest. Yes, your Ghost Host with the Most Most is back folks and this year I've got a whole new batch of scary good reviews for you. Every year I attempt to bring you only the best of the best, and I shall try my best to scare up some goodies once again.
So, hold onto your seats folks, this is going to be one helluva haunting season. The first review should be coming some time tonight, so HANG tight.....It all starts in just a few hours.
Sincerely, Your Ghost Host with the Most Most
Good evening, foolish mortals, and welcome to Smalls' 3rd Annual Fright Fest. Yes, your Ghost Host with the Most Most is back folks and this year I've got a whole new batch of scary good reviews for you. Every year I attempt to bring you only the best of the best, and I shall try my best to scare up some goodies once again.
So, hold onto your seats folks, this is going to be one helluva haunting season. The first review should be coming some time tonight, so HANG tight.....It all starts in just a few hours.
Sincerely, Your Ghost Host with the Most Most
Sunday, September 23, 2012
SMALLS SENTENCES DREDD 3D
Earlier this year, one of the best action movies of all time was released: The Raid. Now, a film that bears a striking resemblance to this masterpiece makes its way to the big screen......Dredd 3D.
Dredd 3D is based off the hit graphic novel. In the far future, the U.S has been ravaged by nuclear war and has essentially become a wasteland. In this wasteland there is a metropolis, Mega-City One, ruled by judges who act as judge, jury and executioner. Their job is to stave off crime as best they can and to dispense their own unique brand of justice. We follow one of the more well-known judges, known simply as Dredd (in the comics I believe he was much more well known and feared than he is in the film), as he takes rookie female judge Anderson out for evaluation. What he doesn't know is that there is a new drug, slo-mo (one guess as to what it does), that is all set to take over Mega-City one and that his attempted eval will bring him and Anderson on a collision course with the drug and the ruthless gang that plan to use it to gain dominance over the city.
Karl urban plays the titular Dredd, and nails the role perfectly. He plays a hardened, growling bad-ass that actually has a well-hidden caring side. He indeed cares for the citizens of Mega-City One, and he doesn't enjoy seeing them gunned down. At the same time though, he isn't above gunning down any one he deems to be a criminal and usually does so without a second thought. Urban is perfectly in touch with his inner Eastwood (Clint Eastwood, that is) as he growls and scowls his way thru the role. He is a fun character to watch and it is immensely enjoyable to see him gunning down the scum he runs into.
Olivia Thirlby is also super great as rookie judge Anderson. The fallout from the nukes had an adverse effect on her while she was growing up, as it gave her psychic powers and the ability to read minds. She is considered a mutant in this new world. Words cannot describe how absolutely hot Thirlby is here, she downright sizzles. She's not just pure eye candy though, as she proves that she can act as well, putting on a great complementary performance to Urban's Dredd.
Lena Headey plays the ugly and intense Ma-Ma, the head of the gang who plans on using Slo-Mo for a hostile takeover of Mega-City One. She plays a pretty good bitch here (although I think I hate her character of Cersei on Game of thrones even more). Headey seems born to play the part of the bitch you love to hate, and her role here only solidifies this.
I chose to see Dredd in 3D, and I'm honestly glad I did. Not much really pops out of the screen except for blood in one scene and shattered glass in another. The 3D does give Dredd some good consistent depth throughout, like in two scenes where we take the place of characters as they fall to their deaths. The main reason I would recommend seeing Dredd in 3D is because it turns the film into a true work of art; the explosions, blasts, spurts of blood, and fog all look dazzling in 3D (everything in the film is gorgeous in 3D) and the slo-mo scenes (of which there are several) are entrancing.
Now, what about that drug I mentioned earlier (and more recently in the last paragraph), what is Slo-Mo? Slo-Mo is a drug that gives the user the illusion of time passing at a much slower rate than it actually is. Slo-Mo is not just used to pretty up scenes though, it is also used by gangs as a means to increase the pain during torture. Dredd 3D uses Slo-Mo just the right amount, not relying too heavy on the gimmick, and not under-utilizing it either. As I've already said, Slo-Mo enhances the 3D to be found in the film, and the overall look of the film as well.
Dredd 3D has been earning comparisons to the superior Raid: Redemption...as it well deserves to. Both The Raid and Dredd were in production at the same time, so I'm not sure who stole from who and if that even matters in the long run. Both Dredd and The Raid use the plot of officials trapped in an apartment complex who are forced to fight their way up in order to capture the main baddie. While The Raid is undoubtedly the better film, that's not necessarily a condemnation of Dredd 3D. Dredd 3D does excel at what it attempts to do, and manages to show audiences a good time and that's all that matters.
While I have never seen the original Judge Dredd, I think it is safe to say that this outing is a far more successful film. All the actors put on great performances, the action is fun, the 3D is impressive and beautiful, there is more than enough gore (FANTASTIC gore effects here, I'll be replaying the eff out of those scenes when I buy this baby in Blu-Ray), and I could eat Olivia Thirlby up in her Judge outfit. The film also boasts one impressive futuristic gun that I MUST OWN....SO COOL. While it's not the best action film of the year, it's still one of the better ones to come out recently. Dredd 3D doesn't look to do more than show it's audience a damn good time, and it succeeds beautifully at this. I say, if you're an action movie junkie, head out and give it watch....you'll be glad you did.
SENTENCE: 3 STARS
Dredd 3D is based off the hit graphic novel. In the far future, the U.S has been ravaged by nuclear war and has essentially become a wasteland. In this wasteland there is a metropolis, Mega-City One, ruled by judges who act as judge, jury and executioner. Their job is to stave off crime as best they can and to dispense their own unique brand of justice. We follow one of the more well-known judges, known simply as Dredd (in the comics I believe he was much more well known and feared than he is in the film), as he takes rookie female judge Anderson out for evaluation. What he doesn't know is that there is a new drug, slo-mo (one guess as to what it does), that is all set to take over Mega-City one and that his attempted eval will bring him and Anderson on a collision course with the drug and the ruthless gang that plan to use it to gain dominance over the city.
Karl urban plays the titular Dredd, and nails the role perfectly. He plays a hardened, growling bad-ass that actually has a well-hidden caring side. He indeed cares for the citizens of Mega-City One, and he doesn't enjoy seeing them gunned down. At the same time though, he isn't above gunning down any one he deems to be a criminal and usually does so without a second thought. Urban is perfectly in touch with his inner Eastwood (Clint Eastwood, that is) as he growls and scowls his way thru the role. He is a fun character to watch and it is immensely enjoyable to see him gunning down the scum he runs into.
Olivia Thirlby is also super great as rookie judge Anderson. The fallout from the nukes had an adverse effect on her while she was growing up, as it gave her psychic powers and the ability to read minds. She is considered a mutant in this new world. Words cannot describe how absolutely hot Thirlby is here, she downright sizzles. She's not just pure eye candy though, as she proves that she can act as well, putting on a great complementary performance to Urban's Dredd.
Lena Headey plays the ugly and intense Ma-Ma, the head of the gang who plans on using Slo-Mo for a hostile takeover of Mega-City One. She plays a pretty good bitch here (although I think I hate her character of Cersei on Game of thrones even more). Headey seems born to play the part of the bitch you love to hate, and her role here only solidifies this.
I chose to see Dredd in 3D, and I'm honestly glad I did. Not much really pops out of the screen except for blood in one scene and shattered glass in another. The 3D does give Dredd some good consistent depth throughout, like in two scenes where we take the place of characters as they fall to their deaths. The main reason I would recommend seeing Dredd in 3D is because it turns the film into a true work of art; the explosions, blasts, spurts of blood, and fog all look dazzling in 3D (everything in the film is gorgeous in 3D) and the slo-mo scenes (of which there are several) are entrancing.
Now, what about that drug I mentioned earlier (and more recently in the last paragraph), what is Slo-Mo? Slo-Mo is a drug that gives the user the illusion of time passing at a much slower rate than it actually is. Slo-Mo is not just used to pretty up scenes though, it is also used by gangs as a means to increase the pain during torture. Dredd 3D uses Slo-Mo just the right amount, not relying too heavy on the gimmick, and not under-utilizing it either. As I've already said, Slo-Mo enhances the 3D to be found in the film, and the overall look of the film as well.
Dredd 3D has been earning comparisons to the superior Raid: Redemption...as it well deserves to. Both The Raid and Dredd were in production at the same time, so I'm not sure who stole from who and if that even matters in the long run. Both Dredd and The Raid use the plot of officials trapped in an apartment complex who are forced to fight their way up in order to capture the main baddie. While The Raid is undoubtedly the better film, that's not necessarily a condemnation of Dredd 3D. Dredd 3D does excel at what it attempts to do, and manages to show audiences a good time and that's all that matters.
While I have never seen the original Judge Dredd, I think it is safe to say that this outing is a far more successful film. All the actors put on great performances, the action is fun, the 3D is impressive and beautiful, there is more than enough gore (FANTASTIC gore effects here, I'll be replaying the eff out of those scenes when I buy this baby in Blu-Ray), and I could eat Olivia Thirlby up in her Judge outfit. The film also boasts one impressive futuristic gun that I MUST OWN....SO COOL. While it's not the best action film of the year, it's still one of the better ones to come out recently. Dredd 3D doesn't look to do more than show it's audience a damn good time, and it succeeds beautifully at this. I say, if you're an action movie junkie, head out and give it watch....you'll be glad you did.
SENTENCE: 3 STARS
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
SMALLS THINKS VHS IS ONE OF THE BETTER FOUND FOOTAGE FILMS OUT TODAY
I am a horror fan, and a fan of the found footage genre. I have never been a fan of anthology films though. So, when a film comes along that tries to mix all three of these elements together into one satisfying experience, well, I just had to hit it up. Does VHS succeed in it's efforts? Let's delve right in and find out.
VHS follows a group of delinquents as they break into a house in an attempt to find a lost VHS tape that could potentially make them a decent amount of money. We join them as they wade thru various VHS's in search of the lost tape. I'm going to go through the various stories we get to watch in this neat little film. Let's start with the story that the whole film revolves around, aptly named Tape 56.
Tape 56 is the main plot of the film, the search for a lost VHS tape. While the group watches the VHS's, we can clearly see something is not right in the house, and slowly, tension builds. This film has a lot of potential, but actually ends up falling to the wayside to other stories we get to watch. I do dig it A LOT but Tape 56 never lives up to its full potential. This is sad, when it serves as the basis for all of VHS. Yes, Tape 56 is indeed interesting and even scary at some points, but it kind of just ends and nothing is really resolved. I'd give Tape 56 2.5 Stars
The first VHS that the group slips in is called Amateur Night, in which two horndogs hook one of their friends up with spy glasses that record everything the wearer sees. Their plan is to get him laid, so they can record the sex. They all go to various bars, and eventually pick up one cute chick that appears to have some scary problems. I immediately was hooked by this film, it's got an interesting way of filming things via the spy glasses (really loved this style of filming, I've never seen a found footage film attempt to do this before and it worked surprisingly well here). That said, the film quickly turns silly when the big reveal occurs. I didn't find it all that scary, but it was still a fun watch. 2 Stars
The 2nd VHS the group views is a story called Second Honeymoon. In Second Honeymoon, a young couple goes on a road trip, recording the ensuing events. I don't want to say exactly what happens, suffice it to say that this film is one of my favorites. It's got a good story, some nice suspense, and an awesome twist that left me pretty stunned. 4 Stars
The next story we get to view is one called Tuesday the 17th. In this story, two dudes and two chicks drive up to a lake for a short vacation. Both guys have dreams of sex on their minds, but something terrible is about to interrupt the possibility of coitus. What they don't know, is that some grizzly murders occurred here several years ago, and that the killer was never found. That's all I'll say for the plot. Naturally, I was drawn right in to this one's story, only to have my expectations ripped apart. This film is very silly and stupid. It really feels like nothing but filler, not to mention the main character ends up being a real bitch. I can easily sum up this one with three words: stupid, stupid, stupid. 1 Star
The 4th VHS that we get to view is one called The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger. This story is told via Skype convos, one of the most interesting formats for a found footage film I have seen in quite a while. The story follows Emily, as she moves into a new apartment. It doesn't take long before she is convinced that it is haunted, and she has her assumed boyfriend, via Skype, help her out with the problem. This one is, to me at least, the most scary out of all the films in VHS. I screamed several times, and was freaking out massively during this one....to the point where I really didn't want to keep watching it. Once again, there is a cool twist in here, and some pretty sick shit goes down. It also helps that the character of Emily is absolutely smokin hot. I can see this one working as it's own stand-alone film. 4 Stars
The 5th and final video we watch is called 10/31/98. In this story, a group of friends go searching for a house party, winding up at the wrong home. They venture inside and soon find themselves in a pretty nasty situation. This story is another strong one. The friend's drunken reactions to the spooky going-ons are pretty entertaining, and when they finally do realize something is wrong and the film kicks into high gear, the proceedings get real fun. It surprised me that I actually ended up caring for the protagonists by the end of this one. Yes, I did yell at the screen a few times (tellin characters what to do). When a film has me that invested, it's a good sign. The only issue I have with this film is that it relies a little bit on CGI, and since most of the other shorts in VHS don't, it makes the CGI that much more obvious. That said, the story at hand here is pretty great, and once again, I do really like the characters here. 4 Stars
VHS is one of the most ambitious and creative found footage films I have seen in a very long time (it's also filmed realistically, the footage is pretty grainy and there is plenty of shaky cam). These filmmakers throw all they got at the screen here. You can really tell that they cared about what they were making. While some of the shorts are weak, there are enough really good and really fun ones to make VHS a good, entertaining watch. It's easily become my 2nd favorite found footage film.
VHS Overall Rating: 4 Stars
Yes, I am aware that if you do the proper math, the mean of all the shorts together would be 3 Stars, I give the film overall 4 Stars though, because I really enjoyed it and I've got to give them some extra points for being ambitious and creative. These folks tried hard, and you can tell.
Oh yes, and there is a good amount of bare breasts in here as well....so there's that
VHS follows a group of delinquents as they break into a house in an attempt to find a lost VHS tape that could potentially make them a decent amount of money. We join them as they wade thru various VHS's in search of the lost tape. I'm going to go through the various stories we get to watch in this neat little film. Let's start with the story that the whole film revolves around, aptly named Tape 56.
Tape 56 is the main plot of the film, the search for a lost VHS tape. While the group watches the VHS's, we can clearly see something is not right in the house, and slowly, tension builds. This film has a lot of potential, but actually ends up falling to the wayside to other stories we get to watch. I do dig it A LOT but Tape 56 never lives up to its full potential. This is sad, when it serves as the basis for all of VHS. Yes, Tape 56 is indeed interesting and even scary at some points, but it kind of just ends and nothing is really resolved. I'd give Tape 56 2.5 Stars
The first VHS that the group slips in is called Amateur Night, in which two horndogs hook one of their friends up with spy glasses that record everything the wearer sees. Their plan is to get him laid, so they can record the sex. They all go to various bars, and eventually pick up one cute chick that appears to have some scary problems. I immediately was hooked by this film, it's got an interesting way of filming things via the spy glasses (really loved this style of filming, I've never seen a found footage film attempt to do this before and it worked surprisingly well here). That said, the film quickly turns silly when the big reveal occurs. I didn't find it all that scary, but it was still a fun watch. 2 Stars
The 2nd VHS the group views is a story called Second Honeymoon. In Second Honeymoon, a young couple goes on a road trip, recording the ensuing events. I don't want to say exactly what happens, suffice it to say that this film is one of my favorites. It's got a good story, some nice suspense, and an awesome twist that left me pretty stunned. 4 Stars
The next story we get to view is one called Tuesday the 17th. In this story, two dudes and two chicks drive up to a lake for a short vacation. Both guys have dreams of sex on their minds, but something terrible is about to interrupt the possibility of coitus. What they don't know, is that some grizzly murders occurred here several years ago, and that the killer was never found. That's all I'll say for the plot. Naturally, I was drawn right in to this one's story, only to have my expectations ripped apart. This film is very silly and stupid. It really feels like nothing but filler, not to mention the main character ends up being a real bitch. I can easily sum up this one with three words: stupid, stupid, stupid. 1 Star
The 4th VHS that we get to view is one called The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger. This story is told via Skype convos, one of the most interesting formats for a found footage film I have seen in quite a while. The story follows Emily, as she moves into a new apartment. It doesn't take long before she is convinced that it is haunted, and she has her assumed boyfriend, via Skype, help her out with the problem. This one is, to me at least, the most scary out of all the films in VHS. I screamed several times, and was freaking out massively during this one....to the point where I really didn't want to keep watching it. Once again, there is a cool twist in here, and some pretty sick shit goes down. It also helps that the character of Emily is absolutely smokin hot. I can see this one working as it's own stand-alone film. 4 Stars
The 5th and final video we watch is called 10/31/98. In this story, a group of friends go searching for a house party, winding up at the wrong home. They venture inside and soon find themselves in a pretty nasty situation. This story is another strong one. The friend's drunken reactions to the spooky going-ons are pretty entertaining, and when they finally do realize something is wrong and the film kicks into high gear, the proceedings get real fun. It surprised me that I actually ended up caring for the protagonists by the end of this one. Yes, I did yell at the screen a few times (tellin characters what to do). When a film has me that invested, it's a good sign. The only issue I have with this film is that it relies a little bit on CGI, and since most of the other shorts in VHS don't, it makes the CGI that much more obvious. That said, the story at hand here is pretty great, and once again, I do really like the characters here. 4 Stars
VHS is one of the most ambitious and creative found footage films I have seen in a very long time (it's also filmed realistically, the footage is pretty grainy and there is plenty of shaky cam). These filmmakers throw all they got at the screen here. You can really tell that they cared about what they were making. While some of the shorts are weak, there are enough really good and really fun ones to make VHS a good, entertaining watch. It's easily become my 2nd favorite found footage film.
VHS Overall Rating: 4 Stars
Yes, I am aware that if you do the proper math, the mean of all the shorts together would be 3 Stars, I give the film overall 4 Stars though, because I really enjoyed it and I've got to give them some extra points for being ambitious and creative. These folks tried hard, and you can tell.
Oh yes, and there is a good amount of bare breasts in here as well....so there's that
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)