billboykins
Joined Jul 2011
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews11
billboykins's rating
I'm a fan of Del Toro or, at least, I was. I think movies such as Pan's Labyrinth, Cronos and The Devil's Backbone are the cornerstones of modern fantasy and I really enjoyed Mimic, Blade II and the Hellboy series 1 & 2. Following The Golden Army, Del Toro took a 5yr hiatus from directing and it's hard to fathom what transpired during that time but he left the magic behind him on his return. Pacific Rim was mindless garbage at best and, stunning visuals aside, I thought Crimson Peak and The Shape of Water were mediocre fare. Nightmare Alley and Pinocchio were truly awful. So...to Frankenstein.
I know that this was very much a passion project for Del Toro and it had been years in the planning. It's a story we're all very familiar with and the cinematic adaptations have varied wildly from James Whale's 1931 Karloff outing to Kenneth Branagh's literal take in 1994. I had high hopes that Del Toro would take us outside the box to some fantastical plane where we would witness Mary Shelley's dark fable unfold as never before. But, sadly, he didn't.
This adaptation is utterly soulless. A drab retelling drowned in bland dialogue and poorly conceived sets. There's nothing unique about this film whatsoever, no magic, no character development, no nuggets to take away and, what's worse, it managed to waste a perfectly good cast in the process. Jason Isaac does his best but the central character is almost comic book in his petulance while Charles Dance, Christoph Waltz and the very brilliant Mia Goth effectively sleepwalked from one overblown sets to another.
I though the film was largely pointless. The straight to screen adaptation has been done many times and they were all better in my opinion. I recently watched a Netflix series called Creature, a Turkish retelling of the story, and I thought Del Toro would have done well to have watched it. It took the book only as a framework and reinvented the working cogs. The creature's story was wonderfully tragic and I thought his travels were steeped in a creativity sadly lacking from Del Toro's take. That Del Toro himself seems to have lost that once defining creativity is tragedy enough as cinema is a far more mundane platform without it.
I know that this was very much a passion project for Del Toro and it had been years in the planning. It's a story we're all very familiar with and the cinematic adaptations have varied wildly from James Whale's 1931 Karloff outing to Kenneth Branagh's literal take in 1994. I had high hopes that Del Toro would take us outside the box to some fantastical plane where we would witness Mary Shelley's dark fable unfold as never before. But, sadly, he didn't.
This adaptation is utterly soulless. A drab retelling drowned in bland dialogue and poorly conceived sets. There's nothing unique about this film whatsoever, no magic, no character development, no nuggets to take away and, what's worse, it managed to waste a perfectly good cast in the process. Jason Isaac does his best but the central character is almost comic book in his petulance while Charles Dance, Christoph Waltz and the very brilliant Mia Goth effectively sleepwalked from one overblown sets to another.
I though the film was largely pointless. The straight to screen adaptation has been done many times and they were all better in my opinion. I recently watched a Netflix series called Creature, a Turkish retelling of the story, and I thought Del Toro would have done well to have watched it. It took the book only as a framework and reinvented the working cogs. The creature's story was wonderfully tragic and I thought his travels were steeped in a creativity sadly lacking from Del Toro's take. That Del Toro himself seems to have lost that once defining creativity is tragedy enough as cinema is a far more mundane platform without it.
When it comes to Asian horror, Thailand hasn't always competed well with countries such as South Korea, Japan and China, Considering the money invested in the Thai film industry, I'm not even sure it compares well with Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. But, every so often, Thailand produces top quality horror that ticks all the boxes for me, I really enjoyed The Screen at Kamchanod, Shutter, Coming Soon, Ladda Land, Art of the Devil I & II, Body 19, Ghost Game and Meat Grinder. More recently, The Medium was a worthy addition to the genre as was Death Whisperer so it came as a surprise to stumble across Host on Prime without ever hearing anything about it.
This is a good movie at every level. It's well cast, the main players are excellent, it's superbly shot, the location is suitably bleak, it's full of atmosphere and the script tight. Host was genuinely unnerving in parts and the filmmakers managed that without ever going over the top. The scares are subtle but effective and, hopefully, it proves to the Thai industry that screeching into the camera went out with false morality and fat shaming. Really enjoyed this and hope it sets the bar for what's yet to come.
This is a good movie at every level. It's well cast, the main players are excellent, it's superbly shot, the location is suitably bleak, it's full of atmosphere and the script tight. Host was genuinely unnerving in parts and the filmmakers managed that without ever going over the top. The scares are subtle but effective and, hopefully, it proves to the Thai industry that screeching into the camera went out with false morality and fat shaming. Really enjoyed this and hope it sets the bar for what's yet to come.
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.