lord_orsum
Joined Oct 2017
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings468
lord_orsum's rating
Reviews189
lord_orsum's rating
This is a ghost story told from a dog's point of view. Full marks for innovation. Todd (who is seriously ill) and his dog, Indy, move to their (deceased) grandfather's (reputedly haunted) house in the deep forest. The dog starts seeing weird things.
On the positive side, there is some genuine creepiness here. The shadows hold some real fear.
On the negative side, Todd is such a dick that it is impossible to root for him. He is a terrible brother and an even worse dog owner.
Wisely, the film does not outstay its welcome, with a modest runtime. It is worth seeing for a stellar performance by Indy. The rest is by-the-numbers.
On the positive side, there is some genuine creepiness here. The shadows hold some real fear.
On the negative side, Todd is such a dick that it is impossible to root for him. He is a terrible brother and an even worse dog owner.
Wisely, the film does not outstay its welcome, with a modest runtime. It is worth seeing for a stellar performance by Indy. The rest is by-the-numbers.
Playdate offers nothing particularly innovative, nor is it going to be remembered twelve months from now. However, it made me laugh out loud in a number of places, and that counts as a win.
Most of the entertainment comes from Alan Richardson, and seeing him play a character so totally different to Jack Reacher. Whereas Reacher has emotional constipation, Jeff has emotional diarrhoea, and this results in some hilarity.
My only major complaint is about the ending, where the main characters do something which is morally unacceptable.
So, if you want a few laughs in an otherwise empty evening, put this on and enjoy.
Most of the entertainment comes from Alan Richardson, and seeing him play a character so totally different to Jack Reacher. Whereas Reacher has emotional constipation, Jeff has emotional diarrhoea, and this results in some hilarity.
My only major complaint is about the ending, where the main characters do something which is morally unacceptable.
So, if you want a few laughs in an otherwise empty evening, put this on and enjoy.
Many years ago, I read the Stephen King short story upon which The Running Man is based. I was surprised at how different it was to the 1987 Schwarzenegger film. So much had been changed to make it an Arnie vehicle. I always found the Gladiator style Hunters rather silly.
This adaptation keeps much closer to the source material (but still makes changes). The concept of the entire population hunting you over a period of 30 days for a bounty is much more dystopian and paranoia inducing.
Glen Powell is very watchable, and the portrayal of the future is well done (mostly because it feels scarily possible). But the film suffers from pacing issues. It has stuff to say about corporations controlling public perception (and the use of deep fakes will only make this worse). But the film veers between dystopian commentary and action (or even action-comedy).
Is it worth seeing? Yes, definitely.
Is it as good as it could (or should) be? No, for sure.
This adaptation keeps much closer to the source material (but still makes changes). The concept of the entire population hunting you over a period of 30 days for a bounty is much more dystopian and paranoia inducing.
Glen Powell is very watchable, and the portrayal of the future is well done (mostly because it feels scarily possible). But the film suffers from pacing issues. It has stuff to say about corporations controlling public perception (and the use of deep fakes will only make this worse). But the film veers between dystopian commentary and action (or even action-comedy).
Is it worth seeing? Yes, definitely.
Is it as good as it could (or should) be? No, for sure.
Insights
lord_orsum's rating
Recently taken polls
4 total polls taken