billboykins
Joined Jul 2011
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews9
billboykins's rating
I'd start by saying I thought 28 Days Later was a decent offering at best and, with the exception of a brilliant opening scene, 28 Weeks Later was just mediocre. I'm not a Danny Boyle fan and I'd lump everything I've seen up to now, including Trainspotting and its abysmal sequel, into the bargain bin at the yawn shop. As for writer Alex Garland, I liked Ex Machina and Dredd whereas, movies like Annihilation, The Beach, Civil War and Men are the reason we have a thumbs down option on Netflix.
28 Years Later opens with a God awful nod to the previous two movies in the franchise. They say you should never work with kids or animals but, if it's your choice to do so, at least make it look as if someone cares about the audience. At that point, it was time to decide if the film was worth wading through and, with no place better to be, I'm so glad that I did.
This is a good movie...really good. The script reminded me a little of Garland's Ex Machina. It was character driven, often poignant and absolutely awash with those wonderful silences that carry you forward. The performances were a mixed bag. Jodie Comer and Aaron Taylor-Johnson were solid enough but, while I admire Boyle for giving Alfie Williams his feature debut, the boy was simply out of his depth. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, was outstanding and the movie was elevated from the moment he appeared. His presence changed the nature of the film and it reminded me of a fighter cutting loose at the end of a round to catch the judges eye. Fiennes caught the eye and the plaudits. Excellent performance.
The ending has been the subject of great debate and, without knowing what to expect, I braced myself. Without divulging anything, I think the film could have done without it but I'm curious to see where it leads. After thirty blistering minutes of Ralph Fiennes, the ending seemed like an afterthought but the next instalment, The Bone Temple, is due in January so let's see how that pans out. It has Nia DaCosta in the directors chair and, with Turkeys like Candyman (2021) and The Marvels to her credit, that chair might be better used as firewood.
Overall I thought 28 Years Later was the best of the trilogy to date. Yes, it has it's flaws. The opening scene is really poorly executed and the ending will divide even those who'd enjoyed the movie up to that point, but it's well worth the effort and I'd certainly pay to watch it again.
28 Years Later opens with a God awful nod to the previous two movies in the franchise. They say you should never work with kids or animals but, if it's your choice to do so, at least make it look as if someone cares about the audience. At that point, it was time to decide if the film was worth wading through and, with no place better to be, I'm so glad that I did.
This is a good movie...really good. The script reminded me a little of Garland's Ex Machina. It was character driven, often poignant and absolutely awash with those wonderful silences that carry you forward. The performances were a mixed bag. Jodie Comer and Aaron Taylor-Johnson were solid enough but, while I admire Boyle for giving Alfie Williams his feature debut, the boy was simply out of his depth. Ralph Fiennes, on the other hand, was outstanding and the movie was elevated from the moment he appeared. His presence changed the nature of the film and it reminded me of a fighter cutting loose at the end of a round to catch the judges eye. Fiennes caught the eye and the plaudits. Excellent performance.
The ending has been the subject of great debate and, without knowing what to expect, I braced myself. Without divulging anything, I think the film could have done without it but I'm curious to see where it leads. After thirty blistering minutes of Ralph Fiennes, the ending seemed like an afterthought but the next instalment, The Bone Temple, is due in January so let's see how that pans out. It has Nia DaCosta in the directors chair and, with Turkeys like Candyman (2021) and The Marvels to her credit, that chair might be better used as firewood.
Overall I thought 28 Years Later was the best of the trilogy to date. Yes, it has it's flaws. The opening scene is really poorly executed and the ending will divide even those who'd enjoyed the movie up to that point, but it's well worth the effort and I'd certainly pay to watch it again.
As an intro, let's just dismiss with the 2019 Neil Marshall adaptation and look to the Del Toro twin set. I really liked Hellboy (2004) and its brilliant 2008 sequel Hellboy: The Golden Army. I yearned for a third instalment to complete the series but, alas, it was never to be.
I always understood that Mike Mignola's comic book creation was not as Del Toro had envisioned and, although a fan of Ron Perlman in the titular role, Mignola had significant issues with the extravagance of the Perlman movies. The Dark Horse comics are exactly that, dark, and the central character is much more low key. So how do you adapt Hellboy without the colourful sets, the flamboyance, the fun, the array of creative characters and the mayhem of Perlman in full flow? Well, apparently you hand it over to director Brian Taylor.
To avoid copying previous adaptations, Mignola co-wrote the screenplay with Brian Taylor and 'Ghosts of Albion' scribe Christopher Golden. I read the reviews and they were poor but they came from fans of Del Toro's work and, in fairness, this is not that. It never tried to be. What we have here is the bare-boned creation of Mike Mignola and it's interesting to note that the positive reviews come from that particular fan-base.
I watched it with that in mind but I missed Perlman even more than I lamented the loss of Del Toro. On the positive, Kesy becomes his own Hellboy and he wasn't bad at all. I really liked the film's bleak backdrop and the Appalachian lore of witches and The Crooked Man is delivered perfectly by the mountain folk who fear it. The film is dark and, although the scenes are never scary, there are moments when you wish the writers and director had gone deeper into the horror aspect as they did it quite well.
On the negative, Kesy is not Perlman and that seamless delivery is missing. I liked Kesy but I felt he tried too hard to pretend he wasn't trying at all and the character obviously misses something in the mix. I thought the camera work was erratic and even annoying at times. Unusual angles work if they lend themselves to the tension but that doesn't happen here. Also, the play on lighting was poor. Very often, the film is too dark and not in a good way.
I know the budget was limited but $20M isn't small change and they could have spread the horror more evenly. If you can raise the dead, as The Crooked Man does, then do so early so that a constant dread exists in the bedevilled Blue Ridge forests. The filmmakers seem to throw the kitchen sink at it in the last 20 mins and I question why they couldn't have been that creative as they developed the layers along the way.
Overall, Hellboy: The Crooked Man is an interesting take on Mike Mignola's Dark Horse Comic character. If you watch this expecting to find the world of Abe Sapien, then move along as there's nothing to see here. But, if you approach it as a fan of the comic or, indeed, a fan of horror, you might be pleasantly surprised.
I always understood that Mike Mignola's comic book creation was not as Del Toro had envisioned and, although a fan of Ron Perlman in the titular role, Mignola had significant issues with the extravagance of the Perlman movies. The Dark Horse comics are exactly that, dark, and the central character is much more low key. So how do you adapt Hellboy without the colourful sets, the flamboyance, the fun, the array of creative characters and the mayhem of Perlman in full flow? Well, apparently you hand it over to director Brian Taylor.
To avoid copying previous adaptations, Mignola co-wrote the screenplay with Brian Taylor and 'Ghosts of Albion' scribe Christopher Golden. I read the reviews and they were poor but they came from fans of Del Toro's work and, in fairness, this is not that. It never tried to be. What we have here is the bare-boned creation of Mike Mignola and it's interesting to note that the positive reviews come from that particular fan-base.
I watched it with that in mind but I missed Perlman even more than I lamented the loss of Del Toro. On the positive, Kesy becomes his own Hellboy and he wasn't bad at all. I really liked the film's bleak backdrop and the Appalachian lore of witches and The Crooked Man is delivered perfectly by the mountain folk who fear it. The film is dark and, although the scenes are never scary, there are moments when you wish the writers and director had gone deeper into the horror aspect as they did it quite well.
On the negative, Kesy is not Perlman and that seamless delivery is missing. I liked Kesy but I felt he tried too hard to pretend he wasn't trying at all and the character obviously misses something in the mix. I thought the camera work was erratic and even annoying at times. Unusual angles work if they lend themselves to the tension but that doesn't happen here. Also, the play on lighting was poor. Very often, the film is too dark and not in a good way.
I know the budget was limited but $20M isn't small change and they could have spread the horror more evenly. If you can raise the dead, as The Crooked Man does, then do so early so that a constant dread exists in the bedevilled Blue Ridge forests. The filmmakers seem to throw the kitchen sink at it in the last 20 mins and I question why they couldn't have been that creative as they developed the layers along the way.
Overall, Hellboy: The Crooked Man is an interesting take on Mike Mignola's Dark Horse Comic character. If you watch this expecting to find the world of Abe Sapien, then move along as there's nothing to see here. But, if you approach it as a fan of the comic or, indeed, a fan of horror, you might be pleasantly surprised.
If you're reading this, it's probably not a stretch to assume you're a fan of the novel and/or the Tobe Hooper adaptation. You may also be aware of the production issues faced by this particular incarnation so we can dispense with the backstory.
Director Gary Dauberman was always facing an uphill battle by taking on such an iconic title, as the original adaptation was regarded as almost genre defining by those who caught it on it's initial release. To be fair to Dauberman, I'm reviewing this as a stand alone telling of Stephen Kings story.
The film starts well, capturing the colours and sounds of 70's America. At one point, I had high hopes for it but that optimism was short-lived and, when it slips, it bounces all the way to a place where even the abysmal 'Graveyard Shift' didn't go. Just when you believe it can't get any worse, it goes there unashamedly and sticks two fingers up to your hopes and expectations. Who needs them? This is Dauberman putting a stake through the hearts of Stephen King and Tobe Hooper without as much as a nod to the audience.
The film is rushed, There's little to no character development. Ben Mears is entirely undercooked and appears as just another soulless cardboard cut-out. Straker is terribly written....cheese please. Barlow is almost non existent and looks like an extra from 30 Days of Night. The Marsten House, the beating black heart of Salem's Lot, is merely a token backdrop and its absence for most of the movie is a clear indication that Dauberman simply didn't understand the source material. Then there's the finale...at the drive-in....utterly ridiculous.
King saw it before his release and said it was 'Pretty good'. What else could he say but he questioned why the director made so many changes to the written work. I can accept change. I thought Kubrick's take on The Shining was incredible and, indeed, Tobe Hoopers 1979 adaptation of Salem's Lot itself was an outstanding memory from the era. But this garbage is simply a wasted opportunity to create something worthwhile and it should have stayed in Warner vaults where we could, at least, have wondered what might have been.
Director Gary Dauberman was always facing an uphill battle by taking on such an iconic title, as the original adaptation was regarded as almost genre defining by those who caught it on it's initial release. To be fair to Dauberman, I'm reviewing this as a stand alone telling of Stephen Kings story.
The film starts well, capturing the colours and sounds of 70's America. At one point, I had high hopes for it but that optimism was short-lived and, when it slips, it bounces all the way to a place where even the abysmal 'Graveyard Shift' didn't go. Just when you believe it can't get any worse, it goes there unashamedly and sticks two fingers up to your hopes and expectations. Who needs them? This is Dauberman putting a stake through the hearts of Stephen King and Tobe Hooper without as much as a nod to the audience.
The film is rushed, There's little to no character development. Ben Mears is entirely undercooked and appears as just another soulless cardboard cut-out. Straker is terribly written....cheese please. Barlow is almost non existent and looks like an extra from 30 Days of Night. The Marsten House, the beating black heart of Salem's Lot, is merely a token backdrop and its absence for most of the movie is a clear indication that Dauberman simply didn't understand the source material. Then there's the finale...at the drive-in....utterly ridiculous.
King saw it before his release and said it was 'Pretty good'. What else could he say but he questioned why the director made so many changes to the written work. I can accept change. I thought Kubrick's take on The Shining was incredible and, indeed, Tobe Hoopers 1979 adaptation of Salem's Lot itself was an outstanding memory from the era. But this garbage is simply a wasted opportunity to create something worthwhile and it should have stayed in Warner vaults where we could, at least, have wondered what might have been.