Before reading your review this film has attracted my attention by amazingly high score 99% on Rotten Tomatoes ( also 8.2/10). It is a result after 182 reviews.
Yeah, it's odd. My hunch is that mostly cast and friends have been voting on it up till now. I expect it will drop off somewhat after it comes out on general release. Those talking about it as a modern horror classic to rank alongside It Follows and The Neon Demon are misguided IMO. Don't believe the hype!
I can see that some people will love it - half the audience did last night - but I think it'll be one of those polarizing films like The Boondock Saints, which many people thought was either the best film or the worst film they'd ever seen! You can see that starting to manifest with Get Out on IMDb where the likes and dislikes for all the reviews are split about 50/50. This is gonna sound condescending, but my guess is this film will generally appeal to a younger, less cine-literate crowd - also the demographic who are more likely to vote on sites like IMDb.
Yeah, it's odd. My hunch is that mostly cast and friends have been voting on it up till now. I expect it will drop off somewhat after it comes out on general release. Those talking about it as a modern horror classic to rank alongside It Follows and The Neon Demon are misguided IMO. Don't believe the hype!
I can see that some people will love it - half the audience did last night - but I think it'll be one of those polarizing films like The Boondock Saints, which many people thought was either the best film or the worst film they'd ever seen! You can see that starting to manifest with Get Out on IMDb where the likes and dislikes for all the reviews are split about 50/50. This is gonna sound condescending, but my guess is this film will generally appeal to a younger, less cine-literate crowd - also the demographic who are more likely to vote on sites like IMDb.
Glad I decided to give this a miss. Due on DVD in NA in May it must be streaming somewhere already.
As for IMDB. I am more and more becoming convinced they need a "Memeber of the Trade" moniker for some of those reviews. I think a lot of family and friend votes pump up new released artificially.
Game-changing horror with incendiary racial agenda? Er, no. This is more Society or The Man With Two Brains than Mississippi Burning - total B-movie territory. How anyone could suggest it has anything relevant to say about black identity or the legacy of slavery in the American psyche is beyond me. It's not a reflection of simmering racial tensions in modern America so much as a reflection of the current trend in Hollywood for massive overcompensation, following the storm at last year's oscars. To say why would be a spoiler, but this film will be accused of racism in the other direction. I don't think it is personally - it's Crayola level; too dumb to be taken seriously - but if you simply flip the script and have a credible black lead surrounded by ridiculous white stereotypes, the accusations will fly.
As a horror, it's barely adequate but gets a few points for keeping me intrigued for a while before I clued into where it was headed and my eyes gradually rolled further and further back into my sockets. I get the distinct feeling I wasn't watching this with a seasoned horror crowd tonight either - I can't remember the last time I heard people screaming with such little provocation and oo-ing and ah-ing at the most obvious of plot points. As a comedy, it's mildly amusing. Humour is a very subjective thing though of course - if you find Chris Rock's stand up hilarious, the chances are you'll be rolling in the aisles at this too.
but now that you mentioned The man with two brains, I need to see Get out. ^_^
it's the kind of stuff that triggers my curiosity, a little like when somebody would say a movie was so bad it reminded him of Starship troopers. I got to see it
but now that you mentioned The man with two brains, I need to see Get out. ^_^
it's the kind of stuff that triggers my curiosity, a little like when somebody would say a movie was so bad it reminded him of Starship troopers. I got to see it
I fear I might have given you a bum steer there - there's only really one scene that made me think of that movie... and I guess the general B movie vibe. Society was a closer comparison. I've actually never seen Starship Troopers. I take it you're a fan?
no worries, disappointment is always my default expectation. when I'm right I at least can enjoy being right, and when I'm wrong, it's a good surprise. ^_^
to me Starship troopers is one of those "so bad it's good". let's just say I spent the movie laughing and it's not a comedy.
but to be clear all of my friends think it's crap, so statistics aren't in favor of the movie.
but now that you mentioned The man with two brains, I need to see Get out. ^_^
it's the kind of stuff that triggers my curiosity, a little like when somebody would say a movie was so bad it reminded him of Starship troopers. I got to see it
I've seen this about 4 times now. I don't usually like Eddie Murphy movies, but I love this one.
He was also pretty funny in "Bowfinger" if anyone remembers that.
Al Adamson at his B best. A long winded z-grade horror movie incorporating the Long Beach Pike in 1971. Perfect cheesy atmosphere and one of Lon Chaney Jr's final roles. He didn't even need makeup becoming the stuff of movies just do to his fast drinking life. Here we witness a hippy investigator who calls himself an observer, a Frankenstein's Monster who tops the list as the worst make-up in film history. Add to that a Dracula who has his voice put through a reverb all through the movie. Dracula is cool and dark just like Arthur Brown but seemingly is not evil but stupid. Dr Frankenstein is a misplaced and misunderstood genius who is hoping to get the use of his legs back with special energized blood which gains a special electrical current if the murdered person has just witnessed the murder of a loved one.
All and all even after seeing this first in 1990, it gets better with age. 9-10.
You can see the parallel of Chaney Jr. with the puppy, that he is innocent and simply a misdirected killer, not fully responsible for his actions with a two sided axe.
Could be straight out of Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men?
Based on David Grann's book of the same name, James Gray's adaptation tells the story of early 20th century explorer and cartographer, Percy Fawcett. Fawcett disappeared on an expedetition to Amazonia in search of what he believed to be the remains of an ancient civilization which he called 'Z'; a euphemism for the discredited notion of El Dorado. Grann endorses the film, and I haven't read his book, but I personally found the telling of the Fawcett's story to be a bit literal-minded. It's something of a throwback to the classical historical epic and although well made, seems strangely anachronistic in this post-modern age.
It chronicles Fawcett's life from his time in the British army, at the turn of the 20th Century, his first expedition to the Amazon to map the border of Bolivia and Brazil at the behest of the Royal Geographical Society up to his final, privately funded expedition in 1925, still in pursuit of his lifelong obsession, the lost city, 'Z'. The key events of Fawcett's life are relayed in a very linear fashion, and it ends up feeling more like a series of vignettes than a coherent narrative. The choice to shoot on 35mm stock also lends the film a nostalgic air through the soft focus and golden tint. Even Fawcett's stint in Flanders is rendered anemic: he is seen sending his men over the top, which is unfortunately a bit of a visual cliche by now and recognisable short hand for WW1 action. It doesn't really hit home - a bit like wandering through a museum where a small section is given over to the recreation of 'the sights and sounds of the trenches'. I'm not even sure that Fawcett, who commanded an artillery brigade during WW1, would have been in the trenches, though someone with more knowledge of the subject will probably set me straight there!
Apparently the film was picked up by Brad Pitt's Plan B production company almost ten years ago and I can imagine it was originally intended as a Pitt vehicle. Charlie Hunman plays Fawcett with a kind of stoical heroism, and I could easily see Pitt in the role - he even bears a passing resemblance to him. Despite Fawcett's generally positive dealings with native tribes, I think the film manages to avoid the pit trap of white saviour complex, but it doesn't really expose the immorality of Empire ambition either. The hidden agenda of the RGS is hardly even hinted at. And that's the film's main shortcoming: it's just too safe. It doesn't give you the grim reality of Fawcett's jungle travails or military exploits; it barely touches on politics or the psychology of the man and his obsessive belief in an archaeological grail. It's classical filmmaking on a grand scale; impressive in its way, but also rather dull - which is a shame, given the potential of the source material.
Based loosely on the same concept far better explored in the Coyote novel series ... but other than that a predictable SciFi/Romantic mess ... yet with unbelievably good CGI. If you have a good TV and enjoy analyzing the quality of CGI ... like me ... then it's totally enjoyable as eye candy alone. So in that regard, I recommend it. And if you like 3D and have a TV that can do it well ... ?? ... you'll like it even more.
Well named here as obviously the writers director et al are complete boneheads. Pity they treat the audience as such. A film that tries so hard to be cool and fails in the way a teenagers dad does when he tries to fit in with juniors peer group. This film is the hollywood equiv of a 50 year old mid life crises EMO kid.
Visual plagarism abounds to the point that Coppola should have insisted on a leading credit. Look folks its Apocalypse Now in Jurassic Park!. At least Coppola got the period pieces right and in context.It just fails so badly compared to Jacksons evokation of the period in which he set his film.It looks and feels like you wandered into a millenials 'Nam themed pool party.In this drekker the anachronism's start piling up from the first scene. Laser cut serrations on a Japanese Pilots Wakizashi (how'd that fit in the cockpit??). Turns out the pilots name is later revealed to be ganbare (hang tough) I guess thats an insiders dig to the audience to stick it out if you made it this far, . Moving right along to mil dot optics in 73, then we get to the pure stupidity of heavy weapons appearing out of nowhere (is that a .50 cal in your pocket or are you just glad to see me) and you get a patchwork film falling apart around Sam Jackson's mad hatter of a Colonel Kurtz performance. Follow this up with the incredible wisdom of flying Huey's into a hurricane with the doors wide open(nobody gets wet though) and you can see the awesome skullpower that was behind this one. It just fails so badly compared to Jacksons evocation of the period in which he set his film.
Generation ADD in full effect here as none of the name brands actually get enough character development to warrant them being in the film. It skips around like a turntable during an earthquake. Save the money hire the staff from the local pub to do it and put in more SFX which really is all this film is about. On that score even Kong does not get a fair shake.
Problem with
aping previous directors efforts is you wind up with a lot of scenes which look identical to something you have already seen but there is no substance in the way of character development or exposition. Jacksons Kong actually managed to evoke humour and pathos. This one evokes memories of Thade from that other guys remake of that other ape film. Thade drank the super sauce and showed up here sans voice to stare menacingly and beat things up.
Riley's performance tries so hard but he's working with carboard cut outs here and it goes nowhere. The only surprise was Hiddleston. Almost passable now that he seems to have moved out of the lip smacking and pout phase, Loki actually almost develops a character here, almost. I hate Jack Black but he actually got directed by Jackson, into a performance light years better than his John Goodman counterpart in this one.Goodman of course exits the film in yet another knock off scene from Jurassic Park. Spielberg didn't get a credit either. Hope he and Francis have the same lawyer.
Wonder if it´s so bad it gets good. Kind of like Battleship. Where they knew they made an action flick and didn´t spend much effort in trying to make it more clever then the board game it´s based on? Aos I understand it the new Kong is the size of a battleship
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
