My excruciatingly long and SPOILER-FILLED review of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho:
[Show spoiler]
Quote:
It's time I tackled THE review, and It only took a halloween challenge to have me attempt it. Now, I've "reviewed" Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece before, but it was more of a gushing list of adjectives than anything else. Personally, I've always felt that a film THIS incredible shouldn't even be reviewed, but experienced over and over again. Yet, I've seen some wonderful takes on Hitchcock's film, and I figured I'd try it out. Just testing the waters here.
Psycho is one of the most influential films in the small history of my cinema addiction. When I was 10, I walked into a video store (remember those?) and asked for two films, John Carpenter's Halloween and Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. That very night, a late and chilly October evening, I was forever shaken and disturbed. Changed, definitely for the better. I distinctly remember going to bed without using the bathroom, mainly because I was still recovering from the iconic "shower scene." Throughout that night, which I believe was a Friday, I spent my time in bed thinking both about the scary imagery as well as contemplating the film-making on display. That night, I was given my film-addict badge, and I've been hooked ever since.
Okay, now to talk about the film. Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is perfect. If there ever was a film that could be labeled as perfection, a piece of art without flaws, I would nominate Psycho without a shadow of a doubt. While some would refute that nomination, probably using the psychiatrist scene as a rebuttal, I could easily knock them down. While I'm kinda starting backwards, I have to address this issue. First off, how many people really knew much detail about Norman's condition? Do you think that every movie-going citizen (in the 1960s mind you) was an expert on multiple-personality disorder? If they didn't have that scene, how would the audience have been able to see Lila's reaction to the news about Marion? Plus, It's a scene that flows with piercing honesty and bluntness. After the pure horror and potent shock of that climax, It's a breather before going in for the final kill.
Alright, let's go back to the beginning. The film opens on a wide view of Phoenix, Arizona, with the camera fading and tracking into an illicit and smoldering hotel room that reeks of empty promises and desire. Here, the audience meets Marion (expertly played by Janet Leigh) and Sam Loomis (played understated by John Gavin). The opening scene is one of the many perfect moments in the film, constantly setting up characters, their arcs, and progressing the story in a wonderful pace, all while adding on new layers. I always love how for 1960, this was some sensual and sexy stuff. It's still sexy today, and that is thanks to the performances and Hitchcock's leering eye, but it isn't even comparable to anything on TV or in film today.
The opening act, complete with an awesome Hitchcock cameo, powerfully and subtly builds on the main story and the characters that traverse the landscape. Basically, Hitchcock is beginning this story in a way that will show and reveal common themes, but not give away anything to come. He shows us this world, one full of lies, corruption, deception, greed, and he fills his characters with these attributes. Yet he still brings empathy and likability to them, which is genius when in hindsight, most of the main characters are deplorable people.
Yet, It all changes with Marion's arrival at the Bates Motel. First off, I love how Hitchcock reveals the motel. There's no dramatic music, no quick cuts; just a house, a motel, and a woman hopped up on greed and stuck in a rain storm. The editing, while even more awe-inspiring and pristine in later sequences, is magnificent in the first views of the house. The shots of Mother in the window, the massive house dwarfing the repressed feelings of the characters, the quiet lighting on the side of the motel; it all adds up to a few seconds of silence before a primal scream that is about to be unleashed.
Then, Norman comes down. Ah Norman. In my eyes at least, he's one of the great characters in the history of film, and it's a fact that this point that it's also one of the finest performances of all time, performed sublimely by Anthony Perkins. The conversations between Marion and Norman, especially in Norman's motel parlor, are steamy and effortlessly engaging. Alfred Hitchcock gives us two character, both that we don't know much about, and he lets them dig at each other, revealing passions, disappointments, dreams, and inner rages. In spite of every scene being amazing, the parlor conversation might be my favorite in the whole film.
After that, we get the shower scene. Yeah, I shouldn't even have to describe it. Scary, terrifying, brutal, impeccably framed, gorgeous, bone-chilling; It's the most iconic sequence of all time. It's simply one of the best. Yet, in spite of the visceral reaction that happens during every re-watch, the scene is also one of the finest mind-f^cks of all time. Basically, the first time I saw this, I thought "Now where is this film going?" So, the main character (so it seemed) is dead, we have this guy who has a killer for a mother, and now he's going to have to clean up the body?
And folks, that's only the end of the 2nd act. Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho then switches to a mesmerizing character study of THE psychopath, a man so terrifying and insane that he makes Hannibal lecter look like a routine burglar. This act, while just as tense and beautifully shot, is messier and creepier. It's an act that the audience doesn't necessarily want to follow, mostly because the film goes to uncomfortable lengths to make the audience root for Norman, regardless of how he actually is.
Personally, every horror film has to have a "kicker." If you don't get what I'm saying, hear me out. In Black Christmas, the end-twist is the "kicker", in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the finding of a certain someone in a freezer is the "kicker." Basically, every horror film needs to have a line or an action that drives home the current arc and state of both the story and characters. In Psycho, it's the finding, by the local Sheriff no less, that Norman's mother has been dead and gone for more than 20 years. I get shivers just thinking about it, because as soon as that line is uttered, the audience realized that they've been had, but they don't know what's been taken. It's some scary sh*t in a film that's about to get even more f^cking scary.
When Lila and Sam Loomis reach the Bates Motel, It's the start of the greatest horror climax of all time. Only Halloween comes close, and that's mainly because they both bring the same amount of earth-shattering terror. As Lila searches the house for Marion, the film builds and builds to a fever-pitch of utter dread. While Lila is searching for Marion, the audience knows that if she finds something, It won't be Marion. The genius irony and play with narrative in regards to what the audience knows and what the characters know is something of an immaculate construction.
Yet, It's when Lila enters the fruit-cellar that the film goes from classic status to LEGENDARY, HISTORIC STATUS. Seriously, the fruit-cellar status is just indescribable in its beauty and its alarming horror. The editing in this sequence is the finest in the film. Yes, even more than the "shower scene." The constant cuts between Mother's corpse, the swaying light, and the physical fight between Norman and Lila is something to behold.
Then, after the psychiatrist scene (which I already discussed), the final blow is delivered. As the camera zooms into the expression of Norman, already long gone, the audience feels that terror building and building. However, as the wicked smile appears, and the trunk is revealed, It's almost as if Hitchcock wants us to laugh; not just at the absurd journey that these characters have been on, but the fact that this all started because of money. Don't get greedy, otherwise you'll be murdered with a knife while you're taking a shower in a shady motel which is run by a shy boy controlled by his mother. Whoa.
Well, after all that, I haven't even written about specifics.
Here we go.
Alfred Hitchcock's direction, is quite simply, flawless. Beautiful, calculating, bursting with creativity, and importantly simple; his achievement here culminates in the finest film that he ever directed. The performances, mentioned somewhat above, are all uniformly excellent. The cinematography by John L. Russell is stark and lush, bringing a feel that represents the overall themes hidden throughout. The editing by George Tomasini is formidable, and it might be the best editing achievement in film-history. The score by Bernard Herrmann is SPECTACULARLY ICONIC, elevating every single frame into an explosion of image and sound. Truly, his soundtrack is a masterpiece in and of itself. The costume design, the production design, the makeup, the writing; EVERYTHING is of a staggering and extraordinary level.
Black Sabbath (aka I Tre Volti Della Paura ITA/FRA 1963)
Yes this is the film that the famous rock band took their name from after they saw how people enjoyed being frightened. An Italian horror movie with a low budget but an international cast, so a different flavour to the British horror anthologies. This film was also one of the first horror anthologies I do believe, before the likes of Amicus and Hammer got the idea.
The stories are introduced by Boris Karloff who is simply standing in front of a dated psychedelic-esque background and giving a speech about all things creepy basically. The funny thing is he is dressed quite normally in a simple suit and is hammering on about vampires and spectres as if this were a Vincent Price movie. The stories you see aren't really in that classic vein though, these tales are actually much more grounded and genuinely creepy (well two are).
The first short story revolves around a young French call-girl who starts getting terrorised by phone calls from her ex-pimp (spoiler alert). This pimp has just broken out of jail and is threatening her life because she was responsible for putting him away. The young girl calls her female friend around to help and comfort her, little does she know the threatening calls are from her friend who is simply trying to reunite with her. The friend figures this is the only way the young call-girl will allow her back into her life...pretty extreme way of making up isn't it! In the end the real pimp shows up and kills them both just as the friend was writing a note to explain what she has been doing.
This first tale is quite poor I think, its in no way scary or remotely thrilling, especially when you discover the friend is behind it all. The thing is this revelation gave me a better idea, they should of made the pimp the one behind the calls as originally expected. Then in the end when the call-girl discovers this it would have been cool to also find out the pimp was killed in his prison escape attempt so all along the calls were coming from beyond the grave. The fact that the pimp merely turns up and kills both young women is a complete anticlimax, just a basic murder. Its very glossy though, it actually looks like a high production porn flick at times.
Next up is a more kooky traditional tale of ghoulies in the night...well a spin on vampire lore actually. Set in 19th century Russia a young man stumbles across a small family in the wilderness who are battling against a breed of creature known as Wurdalak. These things are undead zombie types that feed on the blood of the living, especially relatives they once knew strangely enough. Karloff plays the father of this family that ventured out to kill a Wurdalak but has returned one himself, naturally the story plays out as a battle of survival for all the living.
Definitely the best looking of the three stories, the sets and props are really sumptuous in this and could easily be part of a full length movie. Great atmosphere with the swirling mist and bleak locations but the actual tale is pretty daft really. Karloff is wonderful as the pale grizzled bearded undead nightstalker but end of the day he's merely playing an unkempt Dracula. Everything goes as you might predict admittedly but thinking back I just can't fault the production values on this one.
The final act sees a woman stealing a fancy ring off another woman who has recently passed away. This sets off all manner of supernatural occurrences such as a mysterious dripping of water, a mysterious fly that won't leave her alone and eventually the dead woman's corpse actually appearing before her. Now this short vignette is the jewel in the crown for this movie, its actually incredibly spooky and very atmospheric with the dripping water echoing around the woman's house. It really does give you the chills...that is until the finale where the corpse appears and really does freak you the **** out! The dead body has this God awful twisted expression on her face which is enough to keep you up at night I kid you not, that on top of the whole 'Ring-esque' sequence where it moves towards the terrified woman. The final twist in the tale here is again predictable but oh so delicious.
There is no way an American movie in that era would or could pull off something this scary, at the time this was hard core stuff, the Italians were bold and brave. The mix of half naked ladies, the image of call-girls (hookers), blood and the surprisingly scary final story gave this film a real edge rarely seen in British or American horror anthologies. What's more this entire production clearly has so much class, skill and polish, every segment looks great, sounds great and could work as an individual movie in its own right. The first is standard murder fare, the second is standard ghoulish fare and the third is possibly the inspiration for many modern horror movies ('The Ring'!)...but they are all done very stylishly making other examples look crap in comparison.
Its such a shame Bava chose to end the movie by revealing Karloff astride a fake horse and with all the cameras and crew. The main camera pulls back to reveal the studio floor as Karloff finishes his spooky speech. Not too sure why he's in his Wurdalak character get up either. Can't deny its a fun little ending and very interesting to see how they did that effect, but at the same time I can't help but feel they kinda extinguish everything they managed to created and visualise so well prior to that.
I went into this expecting...honestly nothing because I hadn't seen the trailer in months but remembered thinking I'd check it out.
I quite enjoyed it. It's nothing amazing by any means and is quite by the numbers. I'd say the only thing that can really even almost classify as 'surprising' is the way he finally fully becomes Dracula, but even then its probably something many people will see coming from the beginning of the movie.
It did try to run through a lot quickly. It didn't feel short because of this. I would have liked if they had expanded on some things a little more (say 15 minutes or so total) and the run time would have still been under 2 hours.
Luke Evans was good in the role and made the movie as enjoyable as it was.
****ing hell man. It's rare that a movie can command your attention like this, let alone for 2.5 hours, but 'Gone Girl' manages to do just that. It might not sound surprising, seeing as David Fincher rarely disappoints, but believe me when I say this movie is much more than you'd expect.
Since I kinda wanna keep this short and spoiler-free, let me just say that everyone does a good job here. Yes, even Tyler Perry is rather great. Rosamund Pike deserves a ****ing Oscar for her role, because she is mesmerizing. I also want to mention Carrie Coon, who plays Margo Dunne, and also makes her film debut here. She's pretty damn great as well.
Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross are 3-for-3 as far as Fincher scores go. Their work here is every bit as great as 'The Social Network' and 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.' The way the story unraveled kept me on the edge of my seat, and let's just say the movie gets into some twisted stuff as it reaches its climax. It'll stay with you long after you've walked out of the theater.
In April of 1945, the Allied forces have surrounded the Nazis in Germany, bringing the fight to the Nazi homeland (or Fatherland). Hitler would commit suicide on April 30th, 1945 in the Führerbunker in Berlin, Germany. While no specific day is cited, it is in this timeframe that David Ayer’s WWII tank film, Fury, is set. The Nazis have lost at this point but they’re not going down without a fight, still testing the Allied forces’ resolve. War is hell, ideals are peaceful: a simplistic line spouted in this film. But this line is the central theme on which this film revolves.
We are first introduced to an American Sherman tank crew led by Wardaddy (Brad Pitt) after losing one of their own. Reeling from their loss, the crew head into an American base camp on the frontlines of the war for their next assignment. It is here where an Army clerk typist, Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman), is assigned to their squad, much to the dismay of the other squad members. The crew is made up of entirely deplorable men, each having their own nickname. There’s Bible (Shia LaBeouf) who touts his religious beliefs before mowing down Nazis, Gordo (Michael Peña) who is a Mexican hard-ass, and Coon-Ass (Jon Bernthal) who is a simpleton bully with a mind devoted only to vulgarities and war. Aside from Norman, all of the Fury tank crew are hardened men who feel that survival and victory are justifications for their actions. Norman serves are the moral compass of the film, gasping in horror at what men on both sides are willing to do to each other to claim victory. A simplified take on his character might indicate that he is a coward, but if you look a little deeper you’ll find the opposite. He’s the only one in this crew who truly values human life, and he’s the only one who stands up for it, even if he is weaker and outmatched by the rest of the crew.
But the crew is not inherently evil, it's just war (or so this film needs to remind you every few minutes or so). Fury and its characters aim to take you into the heart of darkness, and it does. Some scenes are truly hard to sit through, not because of the relentless violence mind you, but because of the complete lack of regard for humanity that embodies this crew. The crew have lost their way, and this is most evident not in their violent nature towards the enemy, but in a scene where the crew sits down for dinner with two civilian German women. This scene will make you question just how different the Allied forces are from the Nazis. And while the crew may never descend to the depths of inhumanity that the Nazis did, the darkness brought about by this conflict is there.
While the film is successful in delving into the effects that war has on its participants, there are some character arcs that feel a tad unconvincing, particularly that of Coon-Ass. Jon Bernthal has made a career out of playing disreputable douchebags, and while he’s more than capable in the role, the fault lies in the writing, not with him. Being polar opposites to that of Logan Lerman’s character, Coon-Ass takes it upon himself to exert his “superiority” upon Norman several times throughout the film. But it’s all upended in one little scene before the final battle. It feels shortchanged and dishonest to his character, and it serves as a way to give the audience one last chance to connect with him on some emotional level before the climax. It’s a minor complaint, but it’s one that stuck out like a sore-thumb to me.
All of the actors here do a great job in their respective roles even though some are never naturally fleshed out before us, but again, it’s due to the writing and not the performances. The battle sequences are commanding and viscerally intense, although at times they feel like a Star Wars laser fight due to the red and green tracers being fired back and forth. While the film doesn’t particularly introduce anything new or revelatory, it is a finely acted, superbly shot war flick. If you leave the theater feeling dirty and unsavory, then the film’s mission was a success. War is hell, and you’ll feel like you’ve been through one after watching Fury.
Last edited by Darth Marcus; 10-20-2014 at 12:23 AM.
Watching Fury on Wednesday, I'm yet to be impressed with anything Ayer has made so far.
I thought it was a solid film, but it's nothing that will rush Ayer to the forefront of modern directors. It's supporting characters are thinly scripted and some character arcs are questionable. And if you're not smart enough to figure it out on your own, the film makes a point of beating you over the head with the fact that war is hell. Many, many times over. But when you sit back and think about the aim of the film and what it does, it's successful. It's not an easy watch by any means, and I feel some may confuse its message as pro-war when it is very, very anti-war. It's very intense at times and the battle sequences are excellent, but I feel the film could use some refinement.
I really don't know what to think of this. The acting was excellent, the cinematography was gorgeous, the atmosphere was foreboding and impeccable, and a breakfast scene is one of the finest moments in 2014.
Yet, the rest is typical WWII fodder, with an overbearing score, cliche elements, a preachy script, and a soft ending bringing down the film as a whole.
Basically, when all is said and done, It's a solid war film, and while I was particularly impressed with the aura of disillusionment and foggy misery; the rest feels like leftovers from every "war is hell" film ever made.
Holy crap, I managed to actually go to the movies again! Yaaayyyyy.
Couldn't get off early enough to see Gone Girl, so I had to go with:
Dracula: Untold
Dracula's story has been told and re-told so many times in so many different ways that the mere thought of having a "untold" Dracula tale comes off as ironic. But there is potential, especially in the historic roots of the character (as inspired by Vlad III "The Impaler," or "The Son of the Dragon," considered a hero of Wallachia, but also an infamous butcher everywhere else). Regardless, very few films have explored exactly how Dracula became such a cruel bloodsucking vampire.
The film kicks off with a prologue sequence that spells out who Vlad is and what the Turks are doing to his kingdom, in a style that feels like a moving graphic novel. From then on, the film wastes little time in pitting the titular prince against the Turkish army. Naturally, the prince resorts to fighting evil with evil, consorting with a vampire to gain supernatural powers. From then on, Vlad goes on to crush waves of Turks almost single-handedly. Most of the time, he's either transforming into a swarm of bats that rushes through his enemies, or he's slicing necks with expert swordplay. Scenes in between the action rarely drag; there is a fair amount of drama involved between the prince, his wife, his son, his followers - adding vampirism to these relationships offers a few intriguing twists and implications worth exploring.
However, the story is pretty standard fare; it's as if they took 300, took out the Spartans, replaced Leonidas with Dracula, and used Castlevania as a backdrop. As cool as it is to see a medieval Transylvania in action, the story is very simple and straightforward, and can be quite predictable. Most of it feels like it could have used more refinement; plot holes can undoubtedly be found, and more character development would be quite welcome. The whole film breezes by in a formulaic fashion, entwining bits of history with bits of vampire legend, but it amounts to very little that feels fresh, new, or invoking.
The film generally looks okay, with mostly-good photography and editing. Some of the action scenes have horrid camera work. Acting is okay: I enjoyed watching Luke Evans as the main character, and other actors can be a hit or a miss. Writing is quite simple and unrefined. This production uses pretty fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects offer some good-looking views of fantastic places, and are good with some of the creature effects, but are rougher in the action scenes. Music sounds like more of the same.
Dracula Untold is certainly action-packed and takes advantage of some of the original lore of the character, but it also feels like just another typical swords and sorcery flick. Fans of the character or genre may find it worth renting.
3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)
It may be a stretch, but just imagine a single train looping around a track, cutting through an Earth that's completely frozen over. This train has been running for years, and it has its own microcosm of social classes, with the rich and powerful living in the front in luxury, and all the poor and wretched stuck in the back. When those in the back of the train stage a revolution to take over the front, all hell breaks loose.
That's pretty much what this film entails: the prologue is brief, setting the stage immediately for an all-out onslaught of bloody fighting, riveting peril, and startling revelations. It's a rather grim and bleak film that doesn't shy away from the grisly details, but it's rarely trashy or distasteful. The film is dark, fast-moving, and action-packed. I personally couldn't ask for a more entertaining picture.
What's even more rewarding is the storytelling. It's a bit of a weird and unbelievable yarn, thinking that a single train could run endlessly like this. There are bound to be plot holes to uncover if you really analyze it on the surface level. However, the film slowly unveils more and more details behind its concept that gives more background (whether it's plausible or not is probably debatable). Above all, the film takes itself seriously, everything looks creditable, and it provides a self-contained world that's easy to take on its own merits. In spite of all this, the plot moves fast and reaches an interesting climax (the likes of which would be on-par with the architect scene of The Matrix Reloaded, minus the mumbo-jumbo, but with the same level of plot twisting). Characters aren't terribly deep or refined; they ultimately serve little more than voices for the issues, plot complications, and conflicts that erupt.
The biggest asset to this film are its themes. Some folks won't like them, because it's a very blatant, in-your-face allegory concerning the state of the world we currently live in. The film asserts that we are all headed toward disaster if we continue to run this "train" of ours the way we have been. Whether you look at it as a criticism of the upper class exploiting the lower class, or the depletion of the environment and resources, the film paints a bleak picture to expose the ugly truths of our cold world. I find the parallels compelling, although I'm sure there are those who will find them pretentious, obnoxious, stupid, or something else.
Regardless of how you grade the content, the film looks great with its dark and gritty photography. Editing is top-notch. Acting is great: Chris Evans is surprisingly somber as the protagonist, and I enjoyed the performances by John Hurt, Ed Harris, Song Kang-ho, and Go Ah-sung. Tilda Swinton is awesomely hammy in her role. Every other actor pulls their weight really well. Writing is pretty sharp and good. This production has great-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects tend to look fake, but it rarely detracts from the film's overall quality. Music is decently somber too.
Snowpiercer is a rather odd tale, but one that is highly imaginative, consistently entertaining, and it's chock full of themes worth exploring (whether you want to or not). Highly recommended!
5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Content: Good | Film: Perfect)
Recommendation: Yes, try it.
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 10-22-2014 at 03:51 AM.
Holy crap, I managed to actually go to the movies again! Yaaayyyyy.
Couldn't get off early enough to see Gone Girl, so I had to go with:
Dracula: Untold
[Show spoiler]Dracula's story has been told and re-told so many times in so many different ways that the mere thought of having a "untold" Dracula tale comes off as ironic. But there is potential, especially in the historic roots of the character (as inspired by Vlad III "The Impaler," or "The Son of the Dragon," considered a hero of Wallachia, but also an infamous butcher everywhere else). Regardless, very few films have explored exactly how Dracula became such a cruel bloodsucking vampire.
The film kicks off with a prologue sequence that spells out who Vlad is and what the Turks are doing to his kingdom, in a style that feels like a moving graphic novel. From then on, the film wastes little time in pitting the titular prince against the Turkish army. Naturally, the prince resorts to fighting evil with evil, consorting with a vampire to gain supernatural powers. From then on, Vlad goes on to crush waves of Turks almost single-handedly. Most of the time, he's either transforming into a swarm of bats that rushes through his enemies, or he's slicing necks with expert swordplay. Scenes in between the action rarely drag; there is a fair amount of drama involved between the prince, his wife, his son, his followers - adding vampirism to these relationships offers a few intriguing twists and implications worth exploring.
However, the story is pretty standard fare; it's as if they took 300, took out the Spartans, replaced Leonidas with Dracula, and used Castlevania as a backdrop. As cool as it is to see a medieval Transylvania in action, the story is very simple and straightforward, and can be quite predictable. Most of it feels like it could have used more refinement; plot holes can undoubtedly be found, and more character development would be quite welcome. The whole film breezes by in a formulaic fashion, entwining bits of history with bits of vampire legend, but it amounts to very little that feels fresh, new, or invoking.
The film generally looks okay, with mostly-good photography and editing. Some of the action scenes have horrid camera work. Acting is okay: I enjoyed watching Luke Evans as the main character, and other actors can be a hit or a miss. Writing is quite simple and unrefined. This production uses pretty fine-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects offer some good-looking views of fantastic places, and are good with some of the creature effects, but are rougher in the action scenes. Music sounds like more of the same.
Dracula Untold is certainly action-packed and takes advantage of some of the original lore of the character, but it also feels like just another typical swords and sorcery flick. Fans of the character or genre may find it worth renting.
3.5/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Average | Film: Average)
Recommendation: Rental.
Looks like my thoughts/recommendation were spot on
Something I did not mention in my review:
As cool a spectacle as it was, I 'd at myself when he was
[Show spoiler]controlling the bats because I referred to him as "The Last Batbender"
[Show spoiler]
It may be a stretch, but just imagine a single train looping around a track, cutting through an Earth that's completely frozen over. This train has been running for years, and it has its own microcosm of social classes, with the rich and powerful living in the front in luxury, and all the poor and wretched stuck in the back. When those in the back of the train stage a revolution to take over the front, all hell breaks loose.
That's pretty much what this film entails: the prologue is brief, setting the stage immediately for an all-out onslaught of bloody fighting, riveting peril, and startling revelations. It's a rather grim and bleak film that doesn't shy away from the grisly details, but it's rarely trashy or distasteful. The film is dark, fast-moving, and action-packed. I personally couldn't ask for a more entertaining picture.
What's even more rewarding is the storytelling. It's a bit of a weird and unbelievable yarn, thinking that a single train could run endlessly like this. There are bound to be plot holes to uncover if you really analyze it on the surface level. However, the film slowly unveils more and more details behind its concept that gives more background (whether it's plausible or not is probably debatable). Above all, the film takes itself seriously, everything looks creditable, and it provides a self-contained world that's easy to take on its own merits. In spite of all this, the plot moves fast and reaches an interesting climax (the likes of which would be on-par with the architect scene of The Matrix Reloaded, minus the mumbo-jumbo, but with the same level of plot twisting). Characters aren't terribly deep or refined; they ultimately serve little more than voices for the issues, plot complications, and conflicts that erupt.
The biggest asset to this film are its themes. Some folks won't like them, because it's a very blatant, in-your-face allegory concerning the state of the world we currently live in. The film asserts that we are all headed toward disaster if we continue to run this "train" of ours the way we have been. Whether you look at it as a criticism of the upper class exploiting the lower class, or the depletion of the environment and resources, the film paints a bleak picture to expose the ugly truths of our cold world. I find the parallels compelling, although I'm sure there are those who will find them pretentious, obnoxious, stupid, or something else.
Regardless of how you grade the content, the film looks great with its dark and gritty photography. Editing is top-notch. Acting is great: Chris Evans is surprisingly somber as the protagonist, and I enjoyed the performances by John Hurt, Ed Harris, Song Kang-ho, and Go Ah-sung. Tilda Swinton is awesomely hammy in her role. Every other actor pulls their weight really well. Writing is pretty sharp and good. This production has great-looking sets, props, and costumes. Special effects tend to look fake, but it rarely detracts from the film's overall quality. Music is decently somber too.
Snowpiercer is a rather odd tale, but one that is highly imaginative, consistently entertaining, and it's chock full of themes worth exploring (whether you want to or not). Highly recommended!
5/5 (Entertainment: Perfect | Content: Good | Film: Perfect)
Recommendation: Yes, try it.
Hopefully I end up at least coming close to agreeing with this since I blind bought Snowpiercer today. I'd be shocked if I didn't though.
Looks like my thoughts/recommendation were spot on
Yep, it's alright. I definitely agree that another 15 minutes or so would have helped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel
Something I did not mention in my review:
As cool a spectacle as it was, I 'd at myself when he was
[Show spoiler]controlling the bats because I referred to him as "The Last Batbender"
Hahaha, that pretty much describes it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KilloWertz
Hopefully I end up at least coming close to agreeing with this since I blind bought Snowpiercer today. I'd be shocked if I didn't though.
Sure, why not, you seem agreeable with most things.
I've seen mostly positive reviews for Snowpiercer; it's only now that I see a lot of negative remarks on imdb and Amazon, mostly because it's "too dark," or there are too many plot holes or unbelievable parts. Being "too dark" was never a valid complaint for me personally, and I found most things people brought up could be easily explained or defended. But I can't deny that the concept is a stretch, and now I'm curious to read the original comic to see how it compares.
A 4.5/5 might be more accurate, but to heck with it, I need more 5/5 movies. In any case, I thought it was awesome.
In preparation for 'John Wick', I watched one of my all-time favorite action movies, 'Speed'.
It's amazing to me that, after having grown up watching this film many times, it still manages to keep me on the edge of my seat. The plot is amazingly simple, which is the movie's biggest strength. "Bomb on Bus", which is actually written down in the movie, basically sums it up. The movie starts off fast and never once lets up; there is no breathing room here. It's a cinematic adrenaline shot, and even 20 years later, can still make you go "Holy Shit" more than once. In the pantheon of great action movies, 'Speed' stands tall.
Sure, why not, you seem agreeable with most things.
I've seen mostly positive reviews for Snowpiercer; it's only now that I see a lot of negative remarks on imdb and Amazon, mostly because it's "too dark," or there are too many plot holes or unbelievable parts. Being "too dark" was never a valid complaint for me personally, and I found most things people brought up could be easily explained or defended. But I can't deny that the concept is a stretch, and now I'm curious to read the original comic to see how it compares.
A 4.5/5 might be more accurate, but to heck with it, I need more 5/5 movies. In any case, I thought it was awesome.
I guess I should take that as a compliment.
So have I, which is one reason why I felt safe in blind buying it.
You can give it whatever score you want since it's your review.
'John Wick' is a cautionary tale about why you shouldn't f**k with John Wick. A group of Dumb Guys decide they have what it takes to f**k with him. Big mistake. They ask him if his beautiful 1969 Ford Mustang is for sale. STRIKE ONE. Never ask John Wick if his car is for sale, lest you be met with indifference. Then, undeterred by John Wick's firm "Not For Sale", they break into his house. STRIKE TWO. Breaking into John Wick's house is like asking for the unholiest of punishments. The beating that John Wick receives is only temporary. Dumb Guys' punishment will be much more...permanent. But then, this group commits the cardinal sin. They have the gall to kill John Wick's dog. STRIKE THREE. You have now released an unholy shitstorm upon yourself, forced to live out the rest of your miserable life looking over your shoulder, because John Wick will come for you. And there is nothing you can do about it.
John Wick is not a man, he is a force of nature. He doesn't have time for speeches or silly one-liners. All he knows is that you will die, and you will die painfully. John Wick once killed three men with a pencil. A F**KING PENCIL. This is clearly not a man (sorry, force of nature) that you f**k with, but time and time again, people do exactly that. And pay the price for their mistake. When you call John Wick, he doesn't need to say a word. That "Oh" muttered by Viggo Tarasov tells us everything we need to know.
John Wick is a legend. Everyone knows him, everyone respects him, everyone fears him. Can he be a nice guy? Sure. But cross him, and you will rue the day you f**ked with... John Wick.
Keanu Reeves is back! Yes, yes, I know what you’re thinking. Last year he was in both 47 Ronin and Man of Tai Chi, and in 2012 he produced the excellent documentary Side by Side. But this time he really is back! Like kicking ass in a suit with slicked-back hair back! And it’s freakishly cool!
John Wick is a smart, modern action film that’s a bit of a throwback of sorts to the adult action films from the 80’s and 90’s that we all love. Gone is the green-screen cgi-fest that takes up so much of the cineplex today, and in its stead is a back-to-basics, no-shaky-cam, shoot ‘em up action flick. Where this film is smart is not only in utilizing the talented action star of the past from such films as The Matrix, Speed, and Point Break, but in that it doesn’t try to be anything more than it knows it is. Let me clarify: there are no overly convoluted plot points that twist and turn or aim for shock and awe when you find a double-crosser or a secret police informant. It gets down to the basics and lets the expertly choreographed fights take care of the rest.
In the beginning we find our titular assassin ass-kicker happy and in love. But when he tragically loses his wife to an unnamed illness (we’ll just go with cancer), he’s lost. We get a sense that happiness is not something our “hero” is used to. He’s never had it before, and suddenly in a cruel twist of life’s fateful hand, it’s gone. But along comes a knock on the door one day, and it turns out his wife had one last present to give him from beyond the grave: a puppy. This sounds sappy, but hang with me. This cute little dog becomes one of the only lifelines he has to his past happiness, and a vehicle to help him move on to the next chapter in his life. And so he tries to do so before his mourning is stopped abruptly short by a punk Russian kid who happens to be the son of one of the biggest Russian gangsters in New York City. After a brief but heated exchange at a gas station, this dipshit and his crew hunt John Wick down to his home, beat him within an inch of his life, trash his place, steal his prized car, and of course, kill his dog. Not knowing that they just pissed off the best assassin in the business. And then comes the rampage. Bloody, glorious rampage.
While the action scenes presented in this film are nothing revolutionary, they are beautifully lensed and fiercely kinetic. What I hope Hollywood takes away from this film is that not every action scene needs to employ the shaky cam technique (made popular by the Bourne franchise) or employ endless amounts of digital mayhem to keep them interesting. But of course it helps when your star is doing all of the stunts himself.
Speaking of Keanu, he’s bloody fantastic here. He sells John Wick’s pain and mourning with gravitas, and when the ass kicking starts he’s in beast mode. You believe he’s one of the top assassins in the world with his relentless dedication to the fight scenes. And there are many more wonderful actors along for the ride to help elevate John Wick as one of the best action films of the year. Watch out for Michael Nyqvist as Russian gangster Viggo Tarasov who is having a blast and chewing through every scene he’s in. Other notable performances come from Ian McShane, Willem Dafoe, John Leguizamo, Adrianne Palicki, and Alfie Allen (Game of Thrones) as the jumped-up little turd who forces John Wick to return to his former life of killing.
At one point in the film, John Wick says “people keep asking me if I’m back, and yeah, I’m thinking I’m back!” Damn right, Keanu. Damn right.
Had the opportunity to watch this on the big-screen today, and just in time for the Halloween season.
I had my reservations at first, seeing as the movie is over 50 years old now. I personally have no problem with that, but unfortunately some audience members may find the movie hokey and slightly campy. I thought that might make for an underwhelming experience, but I am glad to report that the audience was respectful and seemed to be enjoying the movie quite a bit (yay!).
As far as the movie goes, there's not much more that can be said. It's a classic from the master himself, Alfred Hitchcock. It's utterly enthralling from start to finish, and pretty much essential viewing not just for horror fans, but film fans in general. Hearing that fantastic opening theme and seeing the amazing title credits by Saul Bass on the big-screen was an exciting moment. Even the shower scene held more power here, making for a hell of an experience. A movie like this demands to be seen on the big-screen.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
'd at myself when he was 
Linear Mode
