223 replies to this topic

[Call Billy Bob]

I'm looking forward to it as much as I was before, not crazy about it but wont miss out on seeing it.

If anything, this has now convinced me to go see it at a midnight showing. I'm now 10x more interested after seeing this new trailer.

I doubt I'll be there midnight, but I will opening night. I'm liking the overall change in direction for it.

True. This may be just the beginning of the big shake-up the series has badly needed.

[x007AceOfSpades]

 

 

 

I'm looking forward to it as much as I was before, not crazy about it but wont miss out on seeing it.

If anything, this has now convinced me to go see it at a midnight showing. I'm now 10x more interested after seeing this new trailer.

 

I doubt I'll be there midnight, but I will opening night. I'm liking the overall change in direction for it.

 

True. This may be just the beginning of the big shake-up the series has badly needed.

 

Agreed. It would've been nice to see the war between man and machine as hinted with the end of Salvation, but this timeline shakeup is by all means welcomed - as we would've received more sequels of John & Co. running around trying to stop Judgement Day (T3) when It's inevitable. Sure that's present in Genisys, but there's more at stake present which makes this all the more exciting.

[Call Billy Bob]

This was always the perfect solution to me. Same characters, new timeline - although the previous films and the tv series can now exist in alternate timelines. And potential twists/shakeups are more than welcome.

[The Dove]

This movie could be so awful it might actually be good...LMAO... Kind of disappointed that Ginger, Matt, Dr. Silberman and Lt. Traxler weren't re-cast as well..

[x007AceOfSpades]

Probably because they aren't vital to the plot.

[The Dove]

True.. I was kidding..

[Call Billy Bob]

First promotional image of Vacation, starring Ed Helms as Rusty:

 

https://www.yahoo.co...6313370152.html

[thecasinoroyale]

I bet this whole Genisys Terminator twist twists again to reveal John has been captured or something in the future and his DNA / whatever has been used to create a skin to send the robot back to kill everyone / everything.

 

It won't be Connor at all I bet. They're not going to give away that plot point so willingly if it were so simple.

[tdalton]

Ryan Gosling in negotiations for new Blade Runner film

[tdalton]

Bill Pullman and Judd Hirsch to return for Independence Day 2

[tdalton]

SEEN:

 

The Voices - 3.5

Backcountry - 4

 

LOOKING FORWARD TO:

Blackhat

It Follows

The Gunman

Furious Seven

Ex Machina

Maggie

Mad Max: Fury Road

Poltergeist

Jurassic World

Terminator Genisys

Ant-Man

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation

Fantastic Four

SPECTRE

Rings

Creed

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Bare

[seawolfnyy]

Off to to see Furious 7. I'm clearly one of the six people in the world who hasn't seen it yet. I do have to say, I understand the whole Paul Walker thing, but seriously, is this movie really about to become the THIRD highest grossing film of all time?

[x007AceOfSpades]

I you like Michael Bay films then you will LOVE Furious 7!

[seawolfnyy]

I despise Michael Bay films (except The Rock), but I really enjoyed Furious 7. The F&F films work best when they embrace the absurd and silly and don't take themselves too seriously. It's what makes the 4th film such a drag, while 5-7 are so much fun. Also, that was a great send off for Paul Walker.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Fast Five was good because it presented heist storyline that actually made the story different while providing some nice action in between. After that it was just "Hmmm, let's see how stupid we can get now".

[x007AceOfSpades]

Star Trek Beyond. July 8th, 2016.

[tdalton]

Will Poulter cast as Pennywise the Clown in Stephen King's It

[Call Billy Bob]

Will Poulter cast as Pennywise the Clown in Stephen King's It

Not sure how I feel about this... I'm glad to get a proper theatrical film of IT, but Will Poulter is nothing like Tim Curry.

[tdalton]

According to a different article I was reading about the casting, they were looking at older actors to take on the role, but Poulter blew them away with his audition

 

I very much doubt that this new version, regardless of who they were going to cast, would have been much like Tim Curry's take on it.  Curry's performance in that TV movie was so good that there really isn't much point, at least IMO, in trying to emulate it.  Might as well do something completely different with it.

[Call Billy Bob]

Perhaps. Hopefully I'm not disappointed when the final product rolls around. But I'm highly skeptical now.

[tdalton]

I think it's in pretty good hands.  Supposedly Stephen King was very pleased with what Fukunaga showed him in terms of the screenplay and approach to his take on It, so it sounds like things are at least starting off from a good foundation.

[SecretAgentFan]

According to a different article I was reading about the casting, they were looking at older actors to take on the role, but Poulter blew them away with his audition

 

I very much doubt that this new version, regardless of who they were going to cast, would have been much like Tim Curry's take on it.  Curry's performance in that TV movie was so good that there really isn't much point, at least IMO, in trying to emulate it.  Might as well do something completely different with it.

 

Exactly.  And Poulter seems to be a really menacing figure in the upcoming film in which he stars with DiCaprio.

[Call Billy Bob]

I think it's in pretty good hands.  Supposedly Stephen King was very pleased with what Fukunaga showed him in terms of the screenplay and approach to his take on It, so it sounds like things are at least starting off from a good foundation.

I'm glad King approves. But, then again, the best adaptation of his work (The Shining) did not get his approval.

[x007AceOfSpades]

Avengers: Age Of Ultron - 2015 - 2/5 - Directed by Joss Whedon - starring Superheroes!Superheroes!Superheroes!

Yup. Netflix's Daredevil is still the best thing Marvel has ever, and probably will ever do.

 

Avengers: Age Of Ultron improves in areas from the first Avengers film. The overall direction is much better, along with the cinematography, pacing, editing, etc. It's far superior than the first film. Except for the awful writing. That's where this film falters the most. Sure it succeeds in being mildly entertaining, but the writing really lets this down from actually being decent.

 

The thing is, all of Marvel's Phase two films seem to follow a rather similar mold, and Age Of Ultron follows that. It's this safe way of story telling that has produced mediocre films in Phase two and left them almost virtually indistinguishable at times. While Age Of Ultron doesn't take an hour to get into the swing of things like it's predecessor, it does have a somewhat decent opening, despite feeling completely uneven which was head scratching. The third act is still complete mayhem and destruction, just like the previous four films in Phase two.

 

While our principal heroes have been developed and fleshed out over several films now, they're fine and the overall plot is less expository than the first film. However, some of the newer characters, particularly Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch feel shoehorned in when in all actuality, they aren't really needed. The film is already crowded as is, so why the need to add in two more characters that are barely developed over a near two and half hour run time? They don't add anything particularly new other than to set up future installments that is.

 

Ultron itself, while being courted to be The Avengers toughest foe to date, actually wasn't all that impressive to me. The marketing - trailers to be exact did a damn good job of trying to make him menacing. When we're first introduced to Ultron you generally feel that after all the weak villains in Phase two, finally one rises to the occasion. Ultron truly proves to be a threat. That is until he just ends up becoming an afterthought and another poorly written villain. The villains plan(s) may seem threatening and plausible (despite this film being so outlandish), but the character itself comes off more as goofy.

 

No one really shines in this one, though it was good to see Hawkeye given a little more to do and a little back story despite it being worthless. Everyone is everyone, they snap into characters and that's that. Andy Serkis' cameo was.... interesting. Elizabeth Olson and Aaron Taylor-Johnson aren't half bad, they just aren't given much. Though they are terrible at holding an eastern European accent. James Spader does a great job voicing Ultron which is about it. I still don't get the praise for Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk. I don't think he's all that great and his character's forced romantic angle with Black Widow was incredibly forced - it wasn't needed.

 

I suppose if I was nine years old I'd be head over heels for this. But I'm not nine years old. In the end, Avengers: Age Of Ultron improves over slight negative from the first film, but is still by no means that impressive. Unless you're easily entertained or you're a Die hard MCU fan, have at it. If anything, Age Of Ultron feels more like a set up film for Avengers: Infinity War and maybe Captain America: Civil War. I'm actually surprised Marvel didn't try and throw in the superhero registration act at the end.

 

At lease Joss Whedon isn't involved in Avengers: Infinity War at all.

 

It Follows - 2015 - 3/5 - Directed by David Robert Mitchell - starring Maika Monroe and Jake Weary.

It Follows definitely is one of the better modern horror films in recent time. However, that doesn't mean I didn't fall in love with it like it seems everyone has. I definitely applaud writer & director, David Robert Mitchell for crafting together one of the most original and creepy horror films to come and going with a classic approach. Less is more. There's no gore, no found footage gimmick, no paranormal bs, it's far more better than that. I give him props for the work he's done, however, I think it's just good. Not necessarily full of flaws, but I also don't think this film is as smart as it wants to make us believe.

 

College student Jay (Maika Monroe) is in a movie theater with her boyfriend, Hugh (Jake Weary) when the two suddenly leave after Hugh spots a woman that Jay cannot see. Later, the two have sex in which Hugh incapacitates her with chloroform. When Jay wakes up, Hugh tells her that he passed on a sort of curse, passed only through sexy, in which she will begin to see a person, whether it's a stranger or someone she knows following her in attempts to kill her. The only way to be rid of the curse is to give it to someone else through sexual intercourse. Throughout the film Jay is pursued by "IT" and surrounds herself with her friends in effort to feel safe and eventually find a way to stop "IT".

 

As I had previously (briefly) stated, It Follows presents a very original and welcoming story to the now stale horror genre. Horror today revolves around the same old tricks, cliches, jump scares. Oren Peli surely didn't make things better once Paranormal Activity came out as it launched a renewed interest in wide releasing cheaply shot found footage style films for a big payday. That isn't It Follows. It's not going to have someone with a camcorder in your face or blood and gore everywhere. It's largely done in the vain of say, John Carpenter's 1978 - slasher masterpiece, Halloween. There's no doubt that when watching, you can how much Halloween and Carpenter (among other 70's and 80's horror films) influenced it.

 

It's incredibly atmospheric and downright spooky. Something that is missing with horror films today. Where horror films think being scary means being viciously stabbed to death or having ridiculous amounts of blood on-screen is scary, it Follows manages to be scary by almost not being scary. I was never hiding-under-the-covers-scary, but I was for the most part spooked. It was very tense in certain scenes (mainly those with "IT") and again, the atmosphere is what really built the film - laying a solid foundation to then build the film up.

 

It's also worth mentioning that this is a great example of visual storytelling. David Robert Mitchell frames his shots perfectly and cinematographer Mike Gioulakis presents a films that is haunting and event at times melancholic. This town (in Michigan, I presume) reminded me a lot of Haddonfield in weird way. Especially with the wide shots and tracking shots that really give this a great, distinct look and actually make the storytelling feel all the more expansive (as David Robert Mitchell has said). It's not a horror film trying to look pretty. It uses it's visual prowess to it's advantage and brings a world to life perfectly.

 

With the "curse", it is easy to see it as an allegory (I know this is the wrong word, but it's the only one I can think of) and view it as a sort of STD. Just a really fucked up STD. An allegory on youth, sex, and death - neat, right? For me it wasn't so much about sexually transmitted diseases, but more about lingering death. Death is always following us, wherever we go. It can strike at an instance. You simply cannot cheat death. That's how I view it. It tells us to be careful who you sleep with. It's death following. I know it's a little different to think this when it's generally the agreement that it's more in line with STD's but that's just what I think.

 

The acting is quite good for this film, with the strongest coming from lead actress, Maika Monroe. Everyone else is good, they aren't completely dumb or too smart. They're just people. How would you react if someone told you that they are now seeing people following them and the only way to get rid of it is through sex? If I was drive up to my friends house and tell him, he'd probably give me a beer and say I'm full of it. No one is trying to figure out what is this "IT" or how to stop it. They are just wondering what the hell to do since they can't see it.

 

Now for the negative. I feel at the scenes where it's truly supposed to be terrifying (when "IT" attacks) they don't feel scary. Yes the atmosphere is spooky as can be, but something felt off. For me it was the beautiful camera work. The opening scene, it worked, the 360 degree turn/shot was creative and the score, combined with the visuals made it creepy. using those long tracking shots and wide shots (wide shots particularly at the lakehouse) just didn't work and didn't have an effect. I would've liked a different technique for them honestly.

 

At times, the film does try to be smarter than it thinks, but it's all too simple to try and outsmart. It's definitely original and inventive, but that's about it. Is it a game changer? No. It's just the little indie horror film that could and did. I don't see major Hollywood horror films going by this mold now, not anytime soon. Is it worthy of it's praise? Sure, I just don't think it's the masterpiece some say it is. That isn't to say it's bad, but it's really just a good film. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, I was actually surprised I liked most of it.

 

Now it appears Radius-TWC is thinking of a sequel, which shouldn't come as surprising when you look at how much money this made against a small budget. However, what made "IT" work so beautiful was that you didn't know where it came from. How it started. You know nothing about it. Just like in Halloween, all we know is that Michael Myers is this unstoppable force. Not a killing machine, but pure evil. The Devil. Doing a sequel to this loses that mysterious lore surrounding it, just like it did with Michael Myers, who went from being more like The Devil to more and more like Jason Vorhees: Coveralls & William Shatner Mask Edition.

 

Less is more. Let's just keep it that way.

 

LOOKING FORWARD TO - MOST ANTICIPATED ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED & BOLD

Sicario

Spectre

The Martian

Pan

Knight Of Cups

Sinister 2

Straight Outta Compton

Crimson Peak

Bridge Of Spies

Mission: Impossible 5

Jane Got A Gun

Hitman: Agent 47

In The Heart Of The Sea

Child 44

Mad Max: Fury Road

Black Mass

Midnight Special

The Revenant

Carol

HAVE SEEN

Taken 3 - 1/5

Blackhat - 4.5/5

Wild Card - 3/5

Vice - 0/5

Chappie - 1/5

Kingsman: The Secret Service - 1/5

Run All Night - 3/5

Fifty Shades Of Grey - 0/5

Focus - 2.5/5

The Loft - 2/5

The Cobbler - 3/5

Black Sea - 3/5

Seventh Son - 0/5

Jupiter Ascending - 1/5

Furious 7 - 1.5/5

Avengers: Age Of Ultron - 2/5

It Follows - 3/5

[x007AceOfSpades]

Mad Max: Fury Road - 2015 - 3.5/5 - Directed by George Miller - starring Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron

Thirty years after the disappointing Beyond Thunderdome, George Miller returns to his franchise with a new vision. The best way to describe Mad Max: Fury Road is that it's The Road Warrior injected with a long syringe filled with adrenaline. I won't say I fell in love with this film like it seems everyone else had, but for what it was, it was good. Extremely entertaining, but once the credits rolled, I wanted more than what was given.

 

The world is a desolate wasteland after nuclear war. Roaming the deserts of the world we once knew is Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy). Max is captured by the War Boys, the personal army for tyrant Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne) and is labeled "Universal Donor" where he is being used as a blood bag for Nux (Nicholas Hoult). When Joe sends Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and her War Rig to collect gasoline, he notices her going off route and finds his five wives missing (with Furiosa). With Joe and the War Boys heading after her, Furiosa builds an unlikely partnership with Max, where she and the wives plan to go to the Green Place.

 

Fury Road is one long car chase. If you thought the car chases and action in The Road Warrior were pretty crazy, than you really don't know the meaning of the word crazy. Yes, this film does largely favor practical effects, which is a great site to behold. It's not every day you see a major studio wanting to allow their director to handle things old school. That doesn't mean there wasn't any CGI, because I heard/read there was roughly a couple thousand (1-3K) VFX in the film. The difference between Fury Road and your average sub-par blockbuster is that everything looks outstanding here. You can tell why almost two years of post-production went into making sure this film was precise.

 

The action is relentless here, rarely giving you some breathing room in between the scenes. Each action scene (largely consisting of car chases) feels different than the last, bringing new ideas and new tricks instead of going stale (I'm look at you Fast & Furious). When the action hits, you're immediately taken by all of it. I won't lie though, while I did like them, I was sort of exhausted by the climax began. Everything before that was outstanding and perfect, but the climax just didn't hit has hard as I was hoping it would. It's still largely better than the climaxes of most blockbusters, but I wanted Miller & Co. to just say "f*** it" and just multiply all the madness by a hundred.

 

Mel Gibson is still and probably always will be Max Rockatansky, but Tom Hardy was fantastic as the one they call the road warrior. Max isn't keen on people - he's a survival. That's his one and only goal in the wasteland, to survive. He doesn't know every form of martial arts or anything of the sorts. He's a goddamn animal fighting to survive. Whether it means killing someone and their desert troops only to return covered in their blood with their supplies or waging vehicular warfare against the gangs of the wasteland. Tom Hardy had that perfect grit to him in this, truly encompassing the character and bringing to life the madness. If only there was more of his pursuit special, though. Charlize Theron was great to watch. You can say it's her character's film, but it's Max and Furiosa's film. They both share the screen together, they both work together in stopping Immortan Joe and work towards their own goals. Theron didn't dominate the film heavily in terms of screen time, she has her moments to shine, just like Hardy does. Sure she has more dialogue than Hardy, but Max wasn't dialogue heavy in The Road Warrior. It's a shared film, but both kick ass separately and joined.

 

After hearing all this talk about Fury Road being feminist, it's easy to see it. It didn't completely deter the film or heavily control it either. Traces of feminism? Maybe, but in all honesty, I think people talking about or complaining about need to just see it. Reading about it from someone else is not the same as experiencing it, because they are two different things here. The women don't empower the film. Yes, they are strong, but without the help of Max, where would they be? In the beginning it's an uneasy alliance, but one that proves to be successful. Everyone wants to survive, you just need to know who you can trust.

 

While the editing could've been better for me during the first car chase, it was nice to see something that wasn't relying to standard mold of cutting an action scene. The cinematography was brutal (in a good way), as the action has a tense feel, almost as if George Miller and director of photography, John Seale are choking you while watching. It's just fricking brutal. I love the sandstorm sequence, I though it was beautiful & colorful and crazy. Action directors can really take a not from George Miller on how to deliver goods - being both filled with style and substance.

 

The story was okay, fitting for this type of action film, but I wanted more. I think if the story was fleshed out more, than I probably would've fallen to the hype. It's okay for what it is, but at times it feels predictable. I see quite a few similarities between this and The Road Warrior, especially seeing how they are both survival films at heart. I wanted to know more about Immortan Joe and have more backstory to Furiosa and the Green Place and figure out more about why the War Boys are obsessed with Valhalla. I was hoping that being an R-Rated film, it would be violent, but this honestly could've passed for PG-13, if some frames of the more violent stuff was cut.

 

All in all, for what it was, Mad Max: Fury Road is a very entertaining film. The action is great, Miller is still in top form for his age, re-vitalizing this franchise. Hardy gives Gibson a scary run for his money, Charlize Theron can definitely do action, and Tom Holkenborg's score was just perfect for this film. It turned out better than expected, but I still wanted more. I'm hoping that on re-watch it improves, instead of the opposite.

 

Masterpiece? Not even?

 

Entertaining piece of cinema? Yes.

 

Lost River - 2015 - 3.5/5 - Directed by Ryan Gosling - starring Christina Hendricks and Ben Mendelsohn

There's no secret when watching Lost River and seeing the influence on debut writer & director, Ryan Gosling. The heaviest one for me was Nicholas Winding Refn (Only God Forgives comes to mind, along with some of his other films). I can see a little bit David Lynch, mainly with the surrealist touch to the film, but I overall can't comment on that since I haven't seen all of Lynch's work.

 

In a small American, town, Billy (Christina Hendricks) lives with her two sons Bones (Iain De Caestecker) and Franky in their home. Three months behind their rent and on the verge of having their home labeled for demolition, Billy takes a job from bank manager, Dave (Ben Mendelsohn) who also runs a burlesque show centered on gore and murder, in order to have income and save their home. Meanwhile, Bones befriends Rat (Saoirse Ronan) who informs him that with towns like this, they demolish towns and are flooded to make a reservoir. The only way to break this curse, is to go underwater and bring a piece of the land up to the surface.

 

The plot synopsis sounds really iffy, and strange, but it ultimately culminates much better when watching it. As if it hasn't been mentioned by everyone already, Lost River is a visually impressive film. Benoit Debie's work here is just flawless, and a beauty to watch and unfold further in mystical, colorful, and haunting ways. There's a great sense of atmosphere I felt when watching which really made my viewing all the better. It's almost like a dark fantasy films. The music score by Johnny Jewel also further adds to the film, making it an overall lush, viewing - as the score complements the cinematography.

 

The acting is a high-point with some of the finer performances coming from Matt Smith, Iain De Caestecker, Saoirse Ronan, and Ben Mendelsohn. Everyone else is great, but it's really those four whom I thought were indeed something special on screen. Especially Matt Smith, who plays "Bully", the films or towns antagonist. There's not a whole lot of depth to his character other than his a mean, crazed person, but it's the way Smith went about his character and truly brought it to life. I only wish there was more of him and his arc. Ben Mendelsohn is one actor I couldn't take my eyes off, and his scenes with Hendricks are among the best and move the plot forward the most. Mendelsohn, like Oscar Isaac in Ex Machina can also dance.

 

There's a lot of promise towards Gosling as a writer & director. If there were any flaws I have with Lost River, one of them are the characters. Yes, the acting is great, but I wish there was more development towards them, making them three dimensional. At times they feel a bit hollow, but overall, the acting makes up for this. I also wish there was more story, not that I had any issues with what was presented. I just wish there was more lore to the Lost River, but at the same time, having more of that, would mean taking away from the mystique and surreal, which makes this film work.

 

Lost River is a rather impressive feature from Ryan Gosling, whom I can say I will certainly be looking forward to his next film. It's easy to dismiss this film; it is flawed, but again, still manages to be highly watchable and thoroughly engaging. For what it is, I wasn't expecting much out of this, but it certainly exceeded any expectations I had. Lost River is a beautiful nightmare of a fantasy.

 

Ex Machina - 2015 - 4/5 - Directed by Alex Garland - starring Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac

Yeah, this is going to be a bit tough to review. Definitely going to require me to put in more thought to this, so I suppose I'll try my best, but I can't guarantee the end result will be good.

However, Ex Machina is definitely one of the better films I've seen this year and is certainly a great, thought provoking piece of science fiction. For Alex Garland's directorial debut, he makes a damn good impression.

 

Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is a coder for the world's most popular search engine, Bluebook. Caleb wins a company lottery to meet Nathan (Oscar Isaac) CEO of Bluebook and stay with him in his secluded home upstate in the mountains. Nathans home is more than just an ordinary, yet beautiful piece of architect. It's a research facility, for which he wants Caleb to be a part of. Nathan has built an artificial intelligence called Ava (Alicia Vikander) and wants Caleb to perform a Turing Test on Ava to see if the robot really has a consciousness or is just simulating one.

 

Throughout Ex Machina we view Nathan as a sort of God complex. He's created the first (presumably) artificial intelligence and has a sense of almost feeling superior at times. Yet, believes that one day artificial intelligence will surpass us humans. The idea of artificial intelligence has been thrown around for some long, that it only seems to follow the same mold. Ex Machina doesn't reinvent the genre (or sub-genre), but brings a nice, fresh look at such a thing. Can artificial intelligence truly express consciousness and be humanized, or just simulate for their own reasons? For me, after watching this, it was in ways both.

 

Ex Machina kept me thoroughly drawn into every little aspect. Whether it was the conversations between Nathan and Caleb or Alicia Vikander's performance where you know she is a robot, but never truly know just what she's thinking. Vikander is surely the star of the film as Ava, playing the character straight down the middle. The character and the acting never seem to be too robotic or too much or a robot trying to be human. It's just down the middle, almost decipherable. Her beauty is a definitely a gaze, but at times almost manipulative. Domhnall Gleeson was rather good in this, but sadly felt like one of the weaker parts of the film. I wouldn't say that it is because of his acting, but rather his overall development (Caleb). Oscar Isaac turns in yet another stellar performance, further cementing the fact that he is currently one of my favorite working actors right now. He can play cool one minute, than chilling then next without hesitation. He also can certainly dance to Oliver Cheatham's "Get Down Saturday Night".

 

It's definitely easy to see the influences other science fiction films have on Ex Machina have, particularly 2001 and Blade Runner. But they're just that, influences. Sure they have similarities, such as with artificial intelligence and themes, but Garland's film is a nice fresh take. The final act is what really did it for me. Everything paid off, and was just sheer brilliance. Alex Garland created one hell of a film. One that made me think, though again, I'm not sure I did a good enough job of expressing it.

 

Just go see Ex Machina.

 

Area 51 - 2015 - 1/5 - Directed by Oren Peli - starring Reid Warner and Ben Rovner

Oren Peli's sophomore feature after hitting it big with Paranormal Activity is a lot like that film. Area 51 has finally seen the light after reported rewrites and reshoots and editing left the film on the shelf for almost five to six years. Perhaps it should have stayed that way.

 

Three young guys, Reid, Ben, & Darrin (Reid Warner, Ben Rovner, and Darrin Bragg) come up with a plan to sneak onto the grounds of Area 51 and get inside the facility in hope of finding signs pointing to extraterrestrial life. They meet Jelena (Jelena Nik) who gives them access to her father's files from the time he worked at Area 51 before he "committed suicide". The files talk about the mysterious Sector Four (S4) which has long been rumored to house alien technology. Using freon filled suits to mask their body temperature, they successfully sneak onto the grounds, heading inside. Inside, they find what they're looking for, and what they weren't.

 

The idea of a found footage film taking place in the coveted Area 51 could turn out to be fascinating. However, it isn't - at least in Peli's film. While the overall planning and discussion they group has about entering Area 51 is actually not, bad, it takes up largely half the film. The other half is running around Area 51. If you're hoping to see some interesting theories or ideas into alien technology, you're not going to find it here. The second half glimmers over the technology with the big emphasis on anti-gravity and of course the flying saucer. These moments are cool and all, but anything frightening? No.

 

Area 51 is more or less Chernobyl Diaries (produced and written by Oren Peli). Similar concept, similar outcome in the end. There's only a few frames of the Gray alien in this film, but even then it's still hard to see exactly what they look like (probably due to budget [actually that's what it is]) It also seems (at least to me) that this film was drawn to Bob Lazar. The supposed "Area 51 employee" who claimed to have "worked on reverse engineering alien technology". Surely the film plods along slowly, never building interest, but what really irked me was the level of security shown at Area 51. I mean it's only the most top-secret base in the world that the CIA didn't acknowledge the existence of until just two years ago. The Area 51 in the film seems to be pretty lenient on security. I would imagine there would be a higher patrol rate as well as more on-site military guards, but not in this film.

 

Whether you believe Area 51 is some top secret base that either condones reverse engineering on alien technology or houses prototype weapons and aircraft for the U.S. Military is entirely up to you. Area 51 just simply doesn't give enough to make this viewing worth anything. It's clear why this took so long to get released. It simply wasn't good or imaginative.

 

Demonic - 2015 - 0/5 - Directed by Will Canon - starring Frank Grillo and Maria Bello

James Wan was planning on using his name, or rather Dimension Films was planning to for their latest supernatural film. Demonic actually turns out to be less demonic as the title and premise would suggest. It turns out that this film is more dull than Wan's The Conjuring. It presents a very basic premise and never really amounts to anything.

 

Six college students in Louisiana go to the Livingston house. A house where a group of people viciously slaughtered with seemingly no trace, nearly two decades beforehand. Detective Lewis (Frank Grillo) is dispatched to the house to investigate and finds that five of the students are dead, with only one, John (Dustin Milligan) alive. As the police search the house more details unfold with the help of Lewis' friend, Dr. Elizabeth Klein (Maria Bello). The college students were to summon supposed supernatural spirits in hopes of capturing it on footage, being that John's mother was in the house for the original murders but them disappeared shortly after.

 

The only real reason why I found myself watching this was because of Frank Grillo. Grillo isn't given much other than typical hard-edged detective who wants to get to the bottom of everything, and unfortunately isn't quite memorable. It's not it's his fault, but that his character and the script entire is awful. Demonic's only means of trying to be scary is by using jump scares and cliches (who knew!). It's quite a boring film to be honest and never really grabs your interest. It's just another supernatural horror film. It feels as if the overall story and the conclusion was done on the fly, as the entire third act is horrendous.

 

Not much to say. Avoid.

 

LOOKING FORWARD TO - MOST ANTICIPATED ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED & BOLD

Sicario

Spectre

The Martian

Pan

Knight Of Cups

Sinister 2

Straight Outta Compton

Crimson Peak

Bridge Of Spies

Mission: Impossible 5

Jane Got A Gun

Hitman: Agent 47

In The Heart Of The Sea

Child 44

Black Mass

Midnight Special

The Revenant

Carol

HAVE SEEN

Taken 3 - 1/5

Blackhat - 4.5/5

Wild Card - 3/5

Vice - 0/5

Chappie - 1/5

Kingsman: The Secret Service - 1/5

Run All Night - 3/5

Fifty Shades Of Grey - 0/5

Focus - 2.5/5

The Loft - 2/5

The Cobbler - 3/5

Black Sea - 3/5

Seventh Son - 0/5

Jupiter Ascending - 1/5

Furious 7 - 1.5/5

Avengers: Age Of Ultron - 2/5

It Follows - 3/5

Mad Max: Fury Road - 3.5/5

Lost River - 3.5/5

Ex Machina - 4/5

Area 51 - 1/5

Demonic - 0/5

[FlemingBond]

i've seen 3 movies in the last couple of months. Furious 7 i'd give 2 out of 5 stars. Really rediculous stunts, in fact mostly cgi. Hard to relate it to the beginning of that franchise.

Avengers Age of Ultron i'd give 3.5 out of 5 stars. There is so much in the movie and a few thing's they don't explain so well. They either needed fewer characters and situations, or another 5-10 minutes.

Tomorrowland 3 stars. Good movie, not great. Interesting message about dreamers and the future.

Edited by FlemingBond, 30 May 2015 - 03:57 PM.

[Professor Pi]

Mad Max Fury Road

 

As much a sequel as it is a reboot, the fourth installment of this franchise wrestles its rightful status back from the Fast and Furious franchise as the definitive car chase filmography.  George Miller shows how it's done with real action, cars, and minimal CGI (used more for the stuntmen's safety as much as any 'wow' factor.)  It definitely fits in with the spirit, if not timeline, of the other three.  There are a suprising amount of references to Beyond Thunderdome as Max continues to be haunted by the children of his past. With minimal dialogue and adrenaline pumping action, this is, as one reviewer noted, the loudest silent movie ever made.  Like the others, it has themes of survival, home, uneasy alliances, and the scarcity of precious liquid resources (water this time as much as fuel). 

 

Max Rockatansky is more catalyst than central to the plot, with Charlize Theron's Furiosa being the focal point.  Her actions and decisions determine most of the story's direction.  But it is Nicholas Hoult as Nux, the War Boy, who has the strongest character arc.  In a casting stroke of genius, Hugh Keays-Byrne who was the villain Toecutter in the original Mad Max plays the baddie, Immortan Joe.  The score is pulse pounding.  Play it while driving a one-truck-band with war drums beating through the desert wasteland.  A most welcome franchise resurrection.

Edited by Professor Pi, 02 June 2015 - 04:34 PM.

[tdalton]

Michael Myers returns to the big screen in Halloween Returns

Going back to the original timeline

Will serve as a sequel to the original Halloween II

Production begins next month

[Royal Dalton]

Sounds as pointless as Halloween II.

[SecretAgentFan]

Sounds as pointless as Halloween II.

 

Exactly!