TheFilmDiscussion's stats
- Review count41
- Helpfulness votes50
- First reviewFebruary 7, 2012
- Last reviewJanuary 25, 2013
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating3.9
Overall rating
3
/
5
"PA4" offers more questions than scares
PostedOctober 19, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
"All the activity has led to this."
At least that's what the posters say. But what exactly have three movies about paranormal things that occur while we sleep led to? "Paranormal Activity 4" doesn't say.
The latest installment of the scare-a-minute franchise brings back directors Joost and Schulman, who breathed new life into the franchise with "Paranormal Activity 3", but who seem to have run out of air here. Sure, their new film is scary enough and still retains a more personal touch than the first two films, but it lacks any significant contributions to the building universe of the franchise.
"PA4" brings us to present day Nevada and introduces a whole new family (read: victims). The married couple with a teenage girl and a little adopted boy soon begin taking care of another little boy from across the street after his mom has an accident and goes to the hospital. This new boy is creepy. Damien from "The Omen" has nothing on this little guy. Soon enough, strange things begin to happen at the house. Chandeliers crashing inexplicably, knives plunging themselves into marble counter tops, doors opening and closing, and a virtuoso scene involving a running car and a seemingly inescapable garage.
These strange happenings raise many questions regarding who the creepy boy actually is, the history of the family's adopted son, and who the creepy boy's mom is and where she came from. Not to mention the baffling addition of what seems to be a new evil spirit in addition to the one that has been haunting these films since day one, and killings during the climax that seem entirely unnecessary. The final scene connects parts three and four with one outstandingly disturbing shot using night vision, but that too only begs more questions.
It should be no surprise that many scenes from the trailer aren't in the actual film, including one that I found particularly clever involving a speaking alarm system gone haywire. Too bad. Many other gags were underused as well. A knife that inexplicably disappears comes back for a shock that is as bland as it gets. I had hoped for something far more creative.
As always, the film still has its fair share of truly frightening scares, but none of them feel as fresh as they did in part one or even the third installment. Maybe it's an even numbers thing.
The highest marks for this film go to the use of webcams and Skype as part of the repertoire of angles from which we see the film. This new technique offers us more "face time" with the characters, rather than simply seeing what they point their cameras at. It's much more involving and helps form bonds with the characters that make the terrifying situations all the more horrifying. Some night vision shots involving an Xbox Kinect's tracking-dot system are pretty clever as well, but again, they're underused.
In spite of its brief moments of inventiveness, solid scares, and a climax that is truly nerve-shattering, the film begs so many unanswered questions that the best accolade it can be given is that it will make you have to see the unavoidable part five.
And maybe you'll want to see it as well. Heck, I still do.
Pros well paced
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
"Perks" is Hughesian greatness
PostedOctober 18, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Stephen Chbosky directs the film version of the novel that he wrote, and that personal touch is felt deeply through every frame of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower”. The heart of this fantastic coming-of-age film is its performances – raw, true, and overflowing with youthful energy. Logan Lerman plays the shy freshman with a past, who doesn’t quite know where he should try to fit in at his new school. Enter Ezra Miller and Emma Watson, seniors at the school with a rebellious streak and hearts of gold big enough to let the new kid into their world. Through their adventures they form bonds that may or may not last forever (you’ll have to watch to find out), and memories that will undoubtedly guide them into greatness for the rest of their lives. The movie feels so John Hughes-y, bursting with style and substance, traits that most “teen” flicks of today lack desperately. So “Superbad” was deeper than most because it dealt with…the fear of loneliness, the unknown? “Perks” hits much harder with themes of sexuality, intense depression, molestation, and suicide. But you’ll laugh too, it’s not all a sob story. It’s a true-life tale about growing up and fitting in, and allowing others to help you when you’re at your worst. “Perks” is coming-of-age at its best.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
"Sinister" boldly lives up to its name
PostedOctober 12, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
In today's depressing world of the Hollywood sequel machine it's so refreshing to see a film that can still shock, scare and surprise. The director of such a film is Scott Derrickson, who refused to let a big studio dictate how his film would play out, and especially how it would end. He searched until he found a company that let him have complete control, a minor miracle. The result is "Sinister", a film so full of unmentionables and studio "no no's" that it feels almost foreign. What's certain is that the film feels uncomfortable, disturbing, and entirely horrifying.
"Sinister" is about a true-crime novelist named Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke), who, in search of his next great story, movies his wife (Juliet Rylance) and two kids to a new town so he can be closer to the crime scene of his planned story. His wife wants to know if they've moved next door to a murder scene "again". He promises "No", and he tells the truth. They've haven't moved next door to the scene of the crime, they've moved into it. Four members of a family were found hanging in a tree out back, and their little girl is still missing.
While unpacking, Ellison uncovers a box of Super-8 films in the attic. Seemingly family home movies, he plays the first one and is shocked at what he finds halfway through. After a few shots of whiskey he returns to watch the rest, witnessing recorded murders before his very eyes. The names on the labels of the home movies take on a sickening double meaning: "Family Hanging Out", "BBQ", "Pool Party", among others. I won't mention the worst one, a segment that is so shocking it left the theatre in a dead quiet, and I'm still trying to shake it.
Unbeknownst to Ellison, something evil lurks within the videos, a demon of ancient days known for doing insidious things, and watching the films releases its evil upon him and his family. It's only a matter of time before it seems he may be next.
There are so many little layers to this film that one wonders how they'll all tie together or if they will even matter by the film's end credits. Surprisingly they do matter, and to Derrickson's credit he brings the house down with a riveting climax that zips everything up tight like a body-bag, without ever stooping into Hollywood Ending territory.
Filmed with a sure eye for framing and with the patience to not burden the film with lots of quick cuts and jump-scares, the director creates a film of suspense that mounts and mounts. When the shocks come, and boy do they ever, they aren't cheap. They're scary as hell.
The script allows for some excellent moments between all of the actors, moments of levity and brief laughter that are more than comic relief (and thank God for any relief this film offers), they're touching and revealing of the characters. Ellison's motivations are strong to stay in the house, but so are his wife's to get outta there. When they finally do reach a decision, it may be too late. At nearly two hours, it's also thirty minutes longer than most horror films and just when you think it's reached a hair-raising climax, you ain't seen nothin' yet! Brace yourselves.
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
"Looper" is the best time travel movie of all time
PostedOctober 1, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Wow. After picking your jaw up off the ground, you’ll have plenty of thinking and discussing to do when you see the best serious time travel movie ever made: Rian Johnson’s “Looper”. “Looper” sets the bar high early on with a breakneck pace and infectiously energetic atmosphere that pervades the entire film, as Jospeph Gordon-Levitt’s character, Joe, violently kills a body that randomly appears in front of him in a desolate cornfield. Huh? Turns out it’s his job. In the future, time travel exists, of course. But so dangerous is it that it is outlawed, meaning of course that only the bad guys use it. They set up an ingenious system where men are sent back 30 years in time to be killed and disposed of, a method so clean because the person doesn’t even technically exist when they appear in the past to be blasted away and burned. The targets come with a hefty vest full of silver bricks, the pay-day for the killers, who are known as Loopers. Confused yet? Joe lives a cushy life, staying expensively drugged-up and sexed-up when he’s not working, but a mistake by a fellow Looper throws a wrench in everything. The other Looper (Paul Dano) let his target go. Why? Because it was his future self, a pre-determined end for every Looper known as “closing the loop”, so there are no messy ends. The bodies on these jobs are loaded with gold bricks, a step-up for killing yourself. Dano’s Looper tells Joe that his future self warned of a man known as the Rainmaker who was closing loops with reckless abandon. With this new knowledge, Joe is faced with killing himself, and in a bizarre series of events that would take more than a book to explain, ends up in a race against time to stop his older self (Bruce Willis) from doing some very bad things. What’s ingenious about the script is its ability to make us root for both versions of Joe, and yet pray that they are both stopped as well. The subtle make-up job for JGL is Oscar quality stuff, as are the special effects. The world that Johnson has created is simply stunning, and feels so realistic that we are immediately pulled into the mind-boggling loop of time travel without looking back. The actors are solid, and the action is fantastic. I have never seen a more flawlessly scripted movie about the paradoxes of time travel. This film is as clean and precise as a Looper’s kill, and as exciting, original and ingeniously action-packed as anything else you’ll see this year.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
"The Master" is marvelous and Oscar bound
PostedSeptember 27, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
A man must serve a master, or a higher calling, in order to have peace and purpose. That seems to be the message of Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, anyways. And while the message doesn’t seem clear until the very end, there is plenty of cinematic gold to keep your mind ticking through its more than two hours of running time. “The Master” tells not so much a plotted tale, rather it presents us with two men who are both struggling in one way or another with the concept of something more than themselves, something bigger than their own lives. Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a sailor who at the end of WWII is more lost than ever, and whose taste for alcohol, even in toxic forms, grows more every day. He stumbles into Lancaster Dodd, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, a man whose life is devoted to The Cause, based on a book he wrote that purports to “awaken” humans unto their past and future lives, thus fully unlocking their potential. For some, like the volatile Freddie, it’s a welcome avenue of purpose and belonging. For others, even Dodd’s own son, it reeks of cult. What makes “The Master” so intriguing is the real world questions it raises about greater purpose and whether or not serving a higher power is a necessity. Dodd presents himself as being fully aware and realized, yet cracks begin to show as the years wear on him and his fame grows. We ask ourselves if he can keep it up. What’s “it”? His followers start to wonder too. But who does Dodd serve? Who is his master? For Freddie Quell, his master is Dodd, and he serves him to the best of his ability, yet it’s not enough for him. Freddie is a torn individual, desperate for belonging and purpose yet hell-bent on never being caged up like an animal. The mere presence of these characters is enough to fill hours of potential stories, whether the plot truly goes anywhere or not. With a film like “The Master”, the journey is in the souls of the characters, and with us as well. It’s a beautifully shot film, directed by a man who has yet to commit a cinematic foul, and acted by two men who disappear into their characters so fully we forget we’re watching a movie. And isn’t that the point? Here is a film that should surely earn Oscar noms for Directing, Cinematography, Art Direction, Best Actor (Phoenix), Best Supporting Actor (Hoffman), Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams, as Dodd’s frigid wife), as well as Best Picture, which it will surely win until I am convinced otherwise (Ben Affleck’s “Argo”, perhaps?). This film just “feels” like a winner. Not only that, but PTA might just have gotten away with presenting an (sometimes harsh) analogy to Scientology, as well as slyly suggesting that both of his lead characters are closeted gays. Talk about a loaded film.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
"Dredd 3D" is fantastic B-movie fun
PostedSeptember 25, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
“Dredd 3D” is one of the best sci-fi actioners I’ve seen this side of the millennium. Karl Urban plays Judge Dredd, a ruff n’ tuff cop in a violent future where his employer, The Hall of Justice, dispatches judges to extract justice on the lawbreakers of Mega City One, a sprawling wasteland of concrete and crime from Boston to the Capitol. These judges have been given the power of judge, jury, and executioner, so you don’t cross them. On the day of the film, Dredd takes up a rookie cop (Olivia Thirlby) to train in the ways of 20xx law enforcement. As a bonus, she’s a psychic, which comes in handy in quite a few situations, of course. They answer a homicide call at a 200-story futuristic project, where the crime boss Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) has taken complete control. Afraid that the cops will edge in on her drug business (Slo-Mo, which makes the brain fell as if it’s experiencing life at 1% normal speed – this allows for some absolutely amazing sequences of slow-motion photography and violence), she hacks the building and locks them in, with one ultimatum over the loudspeaker: The doors won’t open til the cops are dead. And that’s the rest of the movie, a wonderfully action-packed wallop of stylistic violence and gore that understands it’s a high-end B-movie and revels in it. The dialogue is so gruff and packed with machismo that you’re guaranteed to grow chest hair by the film’s end. What pulls this film up to a higher notch is the care given to the look and gadgets of the players. The judges’ armor is incredibly intimidating, and their guns are a marvel that never stops surprising. The violence is intense and in-your-face (literally, if you see it in 3D, which I fully recommend, surprisingly), and the final result is a film that is so much fun you’ll forget that it doesn’t mean much when it’s over.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
"End of Watch" is gritty and heartfelt
PostedSeptember 24, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
David Ayer’s latest cop-drama is gritty, violent and full of perfect moments of flawlessly recreated reality. “End of Watch” is told through a combination of first person video captured by Officer Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) for his film class, as well as traditional methods, resulting in a refreshingly vibrant mix of styles and storytelling. We watch Officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Pena), the ultimate buddy cops, as they drive around what may be the most dangerous beat in America: Los Angeles’ South Central. After an exciting opening shootout they get perhaps a bit full of themselves and investigate a house they might shouldn’t have investigated. The horrors they uncover expose a large drug cartel who then sets their sights on the two officers, throwing the usual “don’t kill cops” rule to the wind in pursuit of preserving their business. Led by a man known as Big Evil (because his “evil is big”), the cartel sets up a riveting last act that pits the two resourceful cops in an all-out war with the whole gang of fully-automatic-toting baddies. In between we get insightful glimpses at the lives behind these two brave badges and the women who pray for them to come home (Natalie Martinez and Anna Kendrick). “End of Watch” is another realistic cop-drama from the writer of “Training Day” that brims with emotion and violence. It doesn’t pull any punches, only triggers.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
In many ways superior to Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man"
PostedSeptember 13, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
The last Spider-Man movie was 5 years ago, and here we are at a reboot?
Who cares! Marc Webb’s (his name suggests that this film was his destiny, no?) “The Amazing Spider-Man” has enough freshness in it to make this latest blockbuster worth the watch. Although Spidey’s origin tale is basically the same, Webb takes more time here than his predecessor to develop the characters and establish more motivation for the story to take place. Acted with gusto by the likes of Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, Denis Leary and Martin Sheen, especially notable are the performances of Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker/Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man and Emma Stone as his sweetheart Gwen Stacey, a resourceful firecracker who can take care of herself if need be. The chemistry between the two leads will stick to your heart like a whole web-ball of warmth and charisma. The nuances that all of the actors bring to their characters ring of such truth that we are swept up into the fantastic elements of the story as easily as Parker swings from web to web. Most surprisingly, the RomCom based Webb directs the action superbly, using 3D well and staging everything where we can see and understand what’s going on, making the battles all the more exciting and intense. And what a villain he’s brought to the screen in The Lizard, Dr. Curt Conners’ biologically created alter-ego. He’s brutally strong, exceptionally fast, and still has his wits about him even when he’s all scaled out!
For all of the feelings of sameness and repetitiveness, this “Spider-Man” earns its name. It’s nothing short of…Amazing!
And on a closing note, I was surprised to see that this film was shot digitally, on a RED camera. I would be lying if I said that this film didn’t look great, and you could have fooled me. I suppose if Marty Scorsese is ready to embrace digital, then I can at least acknowledge that digital film-making may finally be getting somewhere respectable. (sighs…)
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
2
/
5
Both too much and not enough the same as "Midnight in Paris"
PostedSeptember 13, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Woody Allen’s latest film, “To Rome With Love”, may be a companion piece to his wonderful “Midnight in Paris”, having a style and approach similar to the earlier Oscar-winner. Unfortunately, in Rome we’re bogged down by four unrelated stories with characters that are charming, but mostly never explored to their full potential. And with many of the scenes taking place indoors, I never found myself being transported to the titular city as I was so completely with “Midnight”. I will give props to Alec Baldwin, Penelope Cruz, and Ellen Page for some fine acting and comedic timing, and double-props to Woody for still being able to dead-pan like no other. I hate to compare films, but when your opening title sequence uses the same style and font as the last one you made, can you expect me not to? This one could have been great, but its production value and style suggested it may have been rushed.
-Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros great actors
Cons too complex, slow
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
Oliver Stone back to his gritty, outlandish ways
PostedSeptember 13, 2012
TheFilmDiscussion
from Oklahoma City, OK
Age:18 to 24
Gender:Male
Goes to the movies:weekly
Now this is the kind of film you’d expect from Oliver Stone. Filled with copious amount of gritty, violent action, sex, drugs and Stone’s trademark visual flair, “Savages” is his best work since 1994’s “Natural Born Killers”. It tells the tale of O, a young California girl who lives with her two boyfriends, in the small Laguna Beach kingdom they’ve created for themselves with a lucrative pot business. They’re not all bad, they sell a lot of their product for medicinal purposes and build up villages in third-world countries. In fact, they’re almost ready to get out of the business altogether. Until the queen of a powerful Mexican cartel forces their hand and kidnaps O. The two mostly peace-loving friends have to decide what’s most important to them, and set off on a bloody path of revenge and destruction to rescue O. The film is alive with energy, and the camera captures the sets and locations with a cool sizzle. Most impressive are the characters that Stone and his actors have crafted, all of them unique and quirky and unpredictable. Benicio Del Toro is in near Oscar-worthy form as the leader of a “lawn-care” crew that does a little more than lawn cleanup, as he maniacally twists his mustache. He’s great. And so is Travolta, Kitsch, Johnson, Hayek, and even Lively. The ending is both an exciting, wild twist of a surprise, and a Hollywood cop out. But hey, nobody’s perfect.
Thomas Bond, TheFilmDiscussion.com
Pros well paced, great story, great actors
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+2points
2of 2voted this as helpful.