Reviews

6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
3/10
The twist could've been handled better
18 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
So the big twist of the movie is that the three girls we think that are just on their way to a rock concert are really killers behind some satanic ritualistic killings.

However, there's a number of moments leading up to the reveal that don't make sense to me.

The first is when they stop at a gas station and Beverly is reading a newspaper about article about the recent ritualistic murders. Alexis grabs the paper from Beverly looks at it and says "this is supposed to scare other people, not us." I mean I suppose she's not wrong. It will scare others and not them, only because they're the ones responsible. But why would she need to say this to Beverly?

The second is when they're driving and a report about murders going on comes onto the radio. Beverly doesn't want to listen it. Obviously before knowing the twist we think she doesn't want to listen because it scares her. I know we later find out Beverly is apprehensive about going through with everything and changes sides but Alexis and Val don't know this. That should've seen to weird to them. Not wanting to listening to a report about murders on the radio when you're about to commit murders yourself seems odd.

Another is when Beverly is so shook that Mark had a knife on him. You brought them there to be murdered. They're your victims. Why are you concerned he has a knife?

Last thing I'll say about the twist. They gave it away too early. There's a scene where Beverly and Alexis are alone getting the drinks. Beverly says "I've never done anything like this before." She's never done what? Had some drinks and hung out with guys? Then Alexis proceeds to say "you're new to our group" and "this is a big step for you." i suppose the writes want to leave it ambiguous as to what all this means but I think it becomes very clear here that it's really the girls here who are bad.

Now imagine this scene weren't in the movie and we're at the part they are playing Never Have I Ever and Alexis says "never have I ever drugged someone's drink." Then you start to realize the girls drugged the guys drinks and they're really the killers. Would've made for a great moment had it not for the prior scene already giving away the twist.
24 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7500 (2019)
7/10
7500 is a very thrilling singular location film
21 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
7500 is about a plane hijacking from the point of view of pilot Tobias Ellis and without the action ever leaving the cock pit. Once the plane takes off the movie barely lets up until the plane touches the ground.

Shortly after takeoff our pilots are ambushed in the cockpit with terrorists attempting to seize control of the plane. Tobias is put in the impossible position of trying to fend off the men while also flying the plane to save his passengers.

This is Joseph Gordon-Levitt's first film in four years and it's great to see him in a new movie. He said for his first movie back he wanted something to challenge him and I could see why this is a challenging role. I also feel in his mini comeback he wouldn't have done just any movie. So I think he obviously saw something here that he wanted to get on board with. He gave a great performance.

Getting a little bit into spoiler territory, I will say my only gripe was that once the plane landed in Hannover and the rest played out like a hostage negotiation, it dragged a little bit from that point. Just wasn't as thrilling as when the plane was still in the air. Felt like one of those moments when you think a movie is almost over but there's still a lot more left.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Inaccurate and not all that interesting
11 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I've been reading the book recently Bruce Life: A Life by Matthew Polly and that's what sparked my interest to watch the movie. I recently read the chapter where it discusses Bruce's fight with Wong Jack Man. It's nothing like what happens in this movie.

It started because Bruce was very critical of more traditional style and advocated a more modern approach insulting many traditionalists. When Bruce put out an invite to his school many saw it as a challenge.

The fight took place in Oakland. From what I can gather, during the fight Bruce struck Wong while he was intending to shake hands prior to the fight. Stunned and temporarily blinded Wong retreated. Wong pulled out a leather spiked bracelet and struck Bruce with it. The fight ended when Wong crashed into a window with Bruce over him trying to get him to admit defeat. It only lasted three minutes.

That seems to be basically the story in a nutshell. It's a very short portion of the book.

The movie seemed to have little interested in being accurate. Most of the characters were fiction. Most of the events straight fiction. The movie couldn't have at least even had Linda in it. Where was she this entire time? Just one quick mention of her existence.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Flatliners (2017)
5/10
Sequel, remake, or whatever. It feels like the same movie.
29 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A lot has been discussed about whether this movie is really a sequel to the 1990 version or if it's a remake. Whatever it is, it feels an awful lot like the same movie. The one thing that could distinguish between the two are the presence of Keifer Sutherland. After having seen the movie, I don't even know if he's playing the same character from the original or not. Having him appear here felt pretty pointless. There's also no references or mentions of the previous experiment from the first film, further proving that this is in fact more of a remake. The characters and the things they do felt a lot like the ones in the original. One positive I will say is, I was glad to see the movie had the guts to kill off a character. In the first one, other than Sutherland's character, you never feel like any of them are in any real physical danger from their post-flatlining experiences. Here it feels like the stakes are upped a little more.

All in all, it just felt like a really unnecessary sequel/remake that just didn't do a whole lot to set itself apart.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A surprise hit in a unique genre
8 June 2016
While we've seen plenty of mockumentaries before it's not every year we see a new one. It's a genre that goes mostly unexplored, especially in mainstream cinema. From the trio of The Lonely Island (Andy Samberg, Jorma Taccone, and Akiva Schaffer) we get Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping. Popstar follows Samberg's Conner4real, a Justin Bieber-like performer with A-list celebrity status, from his time with the boy band The Style Boyz to his solo career. On the verge of his negatively received new album and a world tour Conner must cope with the potential decline of his career and his celebrity status. The film works as a hilarious satire on the music industry while also being a parody of the concert tour documentaries we've come to see from various artists such as Katy Perry, One Direction, and The Jonas Brothers. Comedy veterans Sarah Silverman and Tim Meadows make supporting appearances and Chris Redd has fun with a potential breakout role as Hunter the Hungry, a fellow musician who's on the way up while Conner is on the way down. Not every joke in the movie hit, but the ones that did had me nearly falling out of my chair in laughter. The Lonely Island are known for their super catchy and occasionally raunchy songs and Popstar delivers in that department. So much so you'll likely have the songs stuck in your head in the following days. Popstar is an overall fun time at the theater. Also, be sure to be on the lookout for the plethora of celebrity cameos Popstar sprinkles within it's 87 minute run time.
30 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Murder Party (2007)
3/10
Saulnier's first is also his worst
26 May 2016
After having seen Blue Ruin and Green Room I was very curious to check out Jeremy Saulnier's first film, Murder Party. The plot sounded interesting and Blue Ruin was excellent while Green Room is one of my favorites of 2016. However, I felt Murder Party was lacking. With this being his first movie and since he was very clearly working with a limited budget, certain things such as low production values can be excused. That aside the movie really didn't really do much to be scary, thrilling, or even funny. The movie mostly consists of our protagonist being strapped to a chair while all the other characters don't really do much of anything that's interesting or fun to watch. From then, nothing really happens up until the film's bloody finale. Murder Party has a lot in common with Green Room. Both movies consist of our main characters getting thrown into life and death situations that take place in one singular location. Green Room just delivers on the thrills while Murder Party does not. Though watching this movie after having seen his other two films, it was interesting to see how he's grown as a filmmaker. I look forward to more from Jeremy Saulnier.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed