Change Your Image
WhaDoYaGot
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Tales from the Darkside: Trick or Treat (Pilot) (1983)
An enjoyable and somewhat creepy start to the show that honestly shows a lot of promise.
"Trick or Treat" (a quite fitting title for a horror series, if you ask me) is the first taste of what kind of horror Tales from the Darkside will productively portray. Straight off the bat, it's more fascinated with spooky creatures and ghouls than it is with atmosphere, and by no means is that bad. Really, nothing should be taken away from this episode, other than a few cheesy scares, and a somewhat worthy life lesson.
Written by Horror maestro George A. Romero, "Trick or Treat" follows wealthy old man Gideon Hackles at his favorite time of the year: Halloween. For a long time he's been providing certain townspeople money that leaves him with a stack of IOU's. You see, Hackles is rather cruel and what he does on Halloween night establishes that rather greatly. The man loves seeing the fear in people's eyes, and one way he does this is by inviting the children of parents' loaded with IOU's to visit his house. Somewhere Hackles has hidden the stash of IOU's, and whichever kid finds it, their parents are free of debt. It's not entirely explained how long this have been going for, but it's been a long time.
Barnard Hughes, or better known as Grandpa in the 80s horror classic The Lost Boys, is both humorous and despicable – a combination that rather works for him. I couldn't help but like his presence, even though his character is cruel to the max. His idea of this hunt gives him immense pleasure, which may raise the fact to why? All we know is he's an old wretched human being, but never does he admit to hurting a child. He only particularly hurts them with fear. As kids nervously word "trick or treat" at Hackles' door, their parent is watching them, urging them to go forward.
One by one, the kids fall victim to a manufactured scare by Hackles. Imagine him sitting in a secluded room, pulling strings and whacking buttons, throwing together an ultimate scare. Things take a turn, though, and a creepy-as-heck witch turns up at his door. This is where the episode gets absurdly fast. Basically, the witch scares Hackles by disposing the money from his safe all over the house, leading a paper trail towards a red lit room, suggested to be hell. It's quite neat to think that the old man wasn't entirely fearful of the flying witch, but rather over the fact that his money wasn't in his possession.
Oh, the life lesson? Don't be cruel to children. That's pretty much it.
Happythankyoumoreplease (2010)
Josh Radnor debuts his directing talent with an unbalanced bowl of satisfaction.
Most of us can recognize the face of Josh Radnor, more noticeably as Ted Mosby from the hit TV show, How I Met Your Mother. With Happythankyoumoreplease, not only is he the film's main protagonist, he's also the writer-director. Props to that. In his debut, a simple New York comedy, he proves he can keep an audience entertained with some exceptions.
A major exception being two thirds of the story. Why? Because the film is really a collection of three stories; one main and two semi-bogus shorties. The main involves Sam (Josh Radnor), a struggling writer in the city of New York who stumbles upon a ten or so year old boy at the subway who's in foster-care. This sets up a nice Paper Moon/Kramer vs Kramer bonding situation. Amongst this he's in between love and friendship. Now to the semi-bogus shorties featuring Sam's cousin (Zoe Kazan) coping with her boyfriend as he returns from LA and the other centering on Sam's best friend (Malin Akerman) doing whatever she does. In this case, bouncing between work, alcohol, lovers and friends.
What works is Sam's story - that's the film's entertainment. Because it's a proper and genuine rendition of the type of story we've seen so many times before it keeps the customers satisfied. This doesn't work with the two shorties. They play out like the one forgettable story in a good collection of short stories, multiplied by two. They're tiresome to say the most. It just keeps the audience waiting harshly until Josh Radnor turns up with the kid.
This reason sustains the movement of the film as well do the supporting cast. Kate Mara is wickedly charming and seductive as Sam's love interest; Josh Radnor is Ted Mosby without the stupid antics; and Zoe Kazan steals the show with a lovely performance besides the unclever fable. These three as well as young newcomer, Michael Algieri, keep the film intact.
Yet what the film suffers from is sustainability. Seeing one third of the film being the most humorous and pleasing, the rest of the film lack inspiration and venture. However, Josh Radnor will without a doubt entertain and engage audiences with his directorial debut, and why not. It's a good splice of New York life.
Stuck in Love (2012)
In spite of an array of average romantic-comedies these days, Stuck in Love tries its best to be humble yet having it's fair share of ROM-com uniform.
Once in a while a special romantic comedy arrives with the up most intention of bending the rules of the genre. Predictability is lost and truth is portrayed - the rare essential in the ROM-COM environment. Try mixing this with a typical family flick and you might have a few problems. Next add a few curse words, sex and drugs to get it going. In the end, Stuck in Love, has it's proportion of predictability yet is a noble debut for Film-maker Josh Boone.
Novelist, Bill Borgens (Greg Kinnear), is the center of the film amongst his two kids and ex-wife Erica (Jennifer Connelly). From time to time he spies on his ex and her new, much younger partner. You could say he's in a boring mid-life crisis. Then there's the two kids - Samantha and Rusty, both aspiring writers with different views on love. Yes, the bunch are stuck in love.
With reasonably good acting, the cast were well chosen. The smaller parts were given well to Kristen Bell who pops up a few times with good cause and a surprise cameo may interact pleasantly yet a tad cheesy. Nonetheless, the cast is crisp.
Its a decent plot to say the most and when things try spice it up it falls short. These few hardly innovative circumstances aren't resolved the way we wish. They offer capability to provide more state-of-the-art stature, but as you guessed, and knew all along, leave you dry. However where it is decent, it's a good watch despite a sappy ending.
All in all, Josh Boone makes a worthy debut. He's a stack of potential waiting to find the correct film - which is great. He deserves to be somewhere in the 'film-makers to look out for' list whether or not his debut isn't anything significant. It's the seeds for a promising plant.
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
Wacky, yet brilliant = Wes Anderson's opus.
Wes Anderson has always been unusual among his films. He writes and directs with an abnormal yet original taste that many favor and many don't. So when his third feature-length came round in 2001, it was relaxing to say he'd deliver exactly that but with the hopes of introducing a few new fans. I can admit The Royal Tenebaums shaped me into a fan of Anderson.
It's when where we're first introduced to the Tenenbaum family we realize they're a wacky bunch built up of Royal (Gene Hackman) and Etheline Tenebaum (Anjelica Huston) alongside their three children (Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson). If the family's all under the same roof together, things won't go gently - which is the basic premise of the story. A divorce between the couple lead to an abundance in time since the family were together - until now when Royal aims to reunite. And like that we have the unexpected and wonderful tale of The Royal Tenenbaums.
Enter Owen Wilson, Danny Glover, Bill Murray, and say hello to a wonderful blend of actors. Always funny and always memorable. Don't forget Alec Baldwin who obtains perfect storytelling as the narrator. The cast fit their characters extremely well, so it's hard to mention flaws and easy to say, "Congratulations on a perfect cast."
Next to be blown away by is the cinematography. It's out-there, yet simple and mesmerizing. Hail to that. It has one of cinema's most remarkable sequences to adore. Touching the cinematography is the fitting soundtrack featuring appearances from 60s sweetheart, Nico, and The (well-known) Rolling Stones. It miraculously fits the Tenebaum family; Outgoing, surprising and mildly doting.
So if you think Anderson is too much a genius for you then ponder this: There's a Tenebaum in all of us. We'd like to shake our heads and chuckle at the statement, but it's hard to let go in our mind. It's Wes Anderson's unique charm that casts spells like that.
Side Effects (2013)
With a stellar cast and a dominating line of twists, Side Effects will have you absorbed yet craving a little.
A good drama has a great pitch. This pitch determines the interest we have in the film. In this case, the latest motion picture from director, Steven Soderburgh, has a brilliant pitch - one that tells little yet everything we need to know. However, you can't tell it's an anfractuous thriller. Props to that.
Emily (Rooney Mara), a young lady with a husband fresh out of prison, is the subject of a new drug prescribed by her psychiatrist (Jude Law). As you guessed, there are unusual side effects. That's all you need to know for an experience made good. Yes, it may sound like a drama about a depressed young woman battling life but no - in a sense.
There's a good number of twists and turns that will shock you. Yet after the initial twist, it loses touch despite the fact it has a few surprising moments. This isn't bad though. It still remains entertaining within its flaws and so unravels nicely with a solid outcome, notwithstanding anything superb nor bad.
It's all forgiven by the stellar cast of foursome Rooney Mara, Channing Tatum, Jude Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones. They all provide believable acts, never slipping out of character. To mention it's lowest flaw, the film does have its share of uninteresting cinematography with the occasional low budget shots rolling by. These you can hopefully ignore.
What we're left with is an impressively well done Steven Soderburgh thriller that maintains progress while hitting a few speed-bumps. Nonetheless it's original, and thanks to a nice pitch, unexpectedly brave.
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Much better than the first dreading Star Trek picture, The Wrath of Khan takes notes of its faults and improves on everything.
When sequels come to life, your mind shuts down. Will it be good? Will it be better? Question after question, the answers finally arrive. With Star Trek, one can hope it would prosper. In this case, The Wrath of Khan succeeds on everything the franchise set out to be in the first place.
We have an interesting story this time round. That's all thanks to returning villain, Khan, played by Ricardo Montalban. He beats the crap out of the previous film's alien, V'Ger, and leaves it in the dust. So if you thought 1979's, The Motion Picture, threw away your Star Trek spirit, it's okay to keep watching.
Captain Kirk and the enterprise's mission is simple, yet dangerous (of course): Stop Khan in the hopes he doesn't use the genesis: a device capable of generating a living planet able to hold life. Thus, the group face a life threatening assignment. What happens is entertaining and bold - something unexplored in the first motion picture.
By all means, whatever you felt about William Shatner's previous performance of Captain Kirk, it's assured you'll be surprised in The Wrath of Khan. Broken from his chains, Shatner is superb. He's backed up by Kirstie Alley in her first movie role as female Vulcan, Saavik. Yet surely, there's a few less memorable acting but all is forgotten with an improvement in costume and special effects.
Assuming that Star Trek: The Motion Picture left you dry, prepare to live long and prosper with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Alongside a dramatic amount of enhancement in story, acting and mostly everything, it seemingly kisses the franchise on the cheek while ignoring 1979's setback.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Just when you think Star Wars has a massive competition to face, Star Trek: The Motion Picture craps all over it within it's first shot of the Enterprise spaceship.
There's one scene in Star Trek: The Motion Picture that is hard to watch. It involves Captain Kirk and the Enterprise Ship. What the two are doing is hard to explain but they seem to be romantically attached. It may sound incredible yet discomforting but believe it or not, it's what we see.
Two years after the Star Wars franchise kicked off with A New Hope in 1977, Star Trek decided, "You know what? It's time for a motion picture." And like that, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was brought to screen and immediately discarded. Why? Because it was an insult to the series - yet it grossed a good amount at the box office.
And so the motion picture begins with an astonishing discovery of an alien energy and the enterprise are called to seek it and do whatever to save its targets. The story, yes, is very simplistic and could have easily been a rejected idea for the canceled series. It never takes off, only somehow is replaced by cheesy lines and bad acting. William Shatner would later put on a better performance in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, but for now he'd best not to act too much like a tree.
Still if you're not upset by that, it's possible you're a trekkie: the film's dedicated audience. How come? I think you'll know once the Enterprise spaceship is introduced for a few dead minutes. Trekkies will cheer, non-trekkies won't. When Captain Kirk's introduced, trekkies will cheer, non-trekkies won't.
What saves the film is Jerry Goldsmith's beautiful soundtrack. Now that is the only thing that could rival Star Wars and appear proudly on your Ipod.
Trekkie or not, Star Trek:The Motion Picture will most likely dishearten viewers. It doesn't take charge of itself at any moment, only acts as a pre-school student. Although the film's success would spawn a fascinating number of sequels, it's poorness would be the thing you'd like to not keep in mind.