Production company Associated General Films · ITC Entertainment
I watched The Eagle has Landed free on YouTube in 4K HD which made it look modern and clear. I enjoyed the experience and wanted to share my thoughts on the movie.
The plot is rather simple however, there is a selection of subplots at play which does leave the movie feeling a bit out of its depth. The Nazis are planning to infiltrate England and kidnap Winston Churchill on his way through a small English town. Michael Caine is part of the crew and is playing a bad guy Nazi. It’s not the first time he’s played the bad guy and he did a good job. On a side note any movie with Caine is guaranteed to be worth the viewing time and has been proven to boost the money that the movie makes in sales.
For a movie from 1967 it holds up well in terms of direction, camera angles, lighting and scenes and sets. Costumes and makeup/special effects are good with a nice selection of explosions and shooting. My own personal preference is toward the older movies because they were better than what is being produced today. They are more gritty, real. They don’t rely on CGI for gunfights or dogfights. I think it was a good choice casting Robert Duvall as the bad Nazi who schemed the whole idea to kidnap Churchill. his acting is rather mysterious, dark and brooding.
As a war film it’s fairly easy going but not 100% accurate. I got vibes of the Dirty Dozen but the film is not in the same category. The clear shots allow it to appear easy to watch. I enjoyed it. Donald Sutherland brings the IRA into the equation, don’t ask me how this works but it does.
This is a really short review because I don’t want to spoil anything. It’s a must watch war movie classic set in England. Similar movies include; The Great Escape, Where Eagles Dare, The Dirty Dozen and The Guns of Navarone.
Starring Jeff Goldblum, Willem Dafoe and Derek Jacobi.
IMDB gives it 6.2/10
“In the aftermath of World War II, a former circus entertainer who was spared from the gas chamber becomes the ringleader at an asylum for Holocaust survivors.”
Perhaps not the most detailed account of the second world war this movie decides to focus on Adam, a somewhat unique former circus entertainer with a knack for making Nazis laugh. What we have is a unique movie with some dramatic acting and disturbing concepts.
Adam is living in an asylum in the idle of the desert following the end of the second world war. He has a charismatic way of acting and Goldblum did a decent job with the psychiatric symptoms. Symptoms which can be classed as a severe form of traumatic stress.
Adam was forced to act as an animal in a concentration camp, leaving him scarred. All the more harrowing is his connection with the nurse, a somewhat sexual deviance reminiscent of his days gallivanting about a stage with women. He is keen to get better, and so too are his doctors wanting this. However, he soon discovers another inpatient who is in a worse condition that he is.
A type of spiritual dramatic movie, Adams personal journey through mentally unwell to a released and normal person is warming, and is quite good to see.
Willem Dafoe doesn’t make much of an appearance but when he does he’s playing the bad guy, which isn’t unusual for him. He’s a harrowing Nazi who abused Adam. Perhaps the directors and writers were themselves confused as to how to use his character. He wasn’t going to play a very big physical but instead emotional role in Adam’s recovery.
It’s a little bit of a hidden gem, but it also certainly no Schindlers List. If you want an uncomfortable movie to watch this is it. Not least down to the acting. I felt like Adam was a bit too flamboyant. There’s little wrong with the set design. It is fairly grim as one would expect and lighting and camera angles were good. Unlike other movies which tend to flick back and forth several times a minute.
I can’t bring myself to rate it more than 7/10 but I do feel it is worth a watch.
Rotten Tomatoes: 30% – IMDB: 4.8/10 (Please read my review before considering these)
Release date: 2009
Runtime: 1 hour and 30 minutes
Genre: Comedy, Drama, Horror, Thriller
Directed by: George A. Romero.
Survival of the Dead is George A. Romero’s last movie directorial effort before his demise in 2017. A zombie classic but one movie which received critical reviews from all parts of the reviews world. Sometimes referred to as a massive failure, this movie, I hope to explain in my review isn’t a bad movie at all. In fact, this is a genius work of art.
It is important to note that Romero never had the giant funding of rich movie studios on any of his works. Land of the Dead (2005) was funded by Universal Pictures but this is a far cry from the pittance he’d received for previous films. That movie also had some big actors on the cast including legendary Dennis Hopper who was fantastic in his role. The next two movies wouldn’t have the same production values.
Survival of the Dead was produced by independent companies, and distributed by Artfire Pictures – released to DVD in 2010. The budget was 4 million dollars. The budget doesn’t detract from the movie, it is a professional art work with good acting, good directing, plot and pace, beautiful set pieces including well chosen locations for the mainland and island on which the latter half of the film would unfold.
So as far as it not being a big budget movie like Land of the Dead, it is nonetheless stunning and given how it looks when watching it I’d say the crew did a great job especially the director of photography.
We have a movie which I would call ‘aesthetically pleasing’, meaning it is nice to look at and the way the actors are presented on screen is also telling of this being a work of art, with deeper meanings than simply another zombie movie. What I particularly like is that right from the word go, we are drawn into quite a dark, haunted world and Romero gives us a zombie kill early on, albeit in a rather black-humour kind of way. Classic Romero, throwing in humour, which he has done before in his movies. Survival of the Dead has more of it, in terms of the zombie kills being somewhat laughable but that doesn’t detract from the effort put into making this.
So, we get dropped into this dark, zombie infested world in which the zombies have taken over. Since Night of the Living Dead Romero has kept the zombies going, with the world becoming increasingly apocalyptic and chaotic. The exception would be the Diary of the Dead in which we see the dead rise for the first time again. In this addition, Survival of the Dead takes us into a warm embrace and George sure knows how to please.
Soldiers go looking for an island, hoping to find safety in a new, terrible world. What they find is that there have been – as is shown at the beginning of the movie with some brilliant acting by Kenneth Welsh – some ongoing feuds between two Irish families. Reminiscent of the Irish civil war in a way, the two men have their own beliefs. One man, Muldoon wants to keep the zombies around and use them to try to get them to eat something other than the living. O’Flynn wants to put them to rest. At first you might be siding with O’Flynn, despite the fact he’s been robbing people and sending them to the island for money, only for them to arrive and be killed by Muldoons people. Intent on keeping the island his own, it is clear the soldiers have stumbled onto a familiar power struggle.
The living fighting the dead. Two Irish men, fighting since childhood. Determined to outwit and outdo the other, the movie sort of trails off from any sort of survival aspect. Which, to me, is genius. Not only are the zombies in the background playing a central role to one of these men, or so he believes, but they are also there are post marks to the climax of the movie. With neither side willing to back down and admit defeat I wondered, initially, what would happen. There was no doubt that blood would be shed. Killing of living and dead. Betrayal, family feud and warring neighbours. It’s drama at its best. I don’t say that lightly.
What Romero is giving us is a human portrait, and I stress again that the acting is good, you just need to be able to appreciate the plot and style to see it. This war between the living comes at great cost. Arrogance and pride take the limelight. Religion and good old fashioned guns combat one another. If morality exists in this movie, neither of the warring parties have it. O’Flynn, too ignorant to stand down has already lost his daughter. I can see his point, and partially agree with ending the zombies. Muldoon comes across at first as very unlikeable. However, as he explains his point I started to see what he was doing. I think, given the movies ending that we can safely say that had both men just lowered their guns and shared the island, that things might have turned out okay for them all.
The soldiers are just caught in the middle of this war, which I find amusing as they are afterall, soldiers. You could say this is a nod to the Green zones in which soldiers become accustomed to being at rest, not firing weapons or being attacked until one day, they are. They side with O’Flynn from the beginning, but at the end of the movie, the soldiers left have told us – through narration by Alan Van Sprang (Sarge) – that he too though there was more to Muldoon’s argument.
It’s a movie with tension, dark humour and slower paced drama that blends rather well into something of a horror. The horrors of war, no side backing down, losing people in the process until nobody is left. Each side taking hits, because they want to be right and to win. George Romero should be glad at this effort as it was not wasted. Far from it.
Further reviews have gone on to say that film doesn’t have the societal issues interwoven into the plot like other Romero movies. This isn’t true because as I said previously the drama and conflict is demonstrated right from the beginning of the movie. If you can see the artistic work here, and what is really being said I believe you will enjoy it. Sure, you might find the scenes stilted and lackluster, but I can see there is a purpose to this. By having no music in one scene it heightens the emotion of a sad character. By keeping the camera stationary when O’Flynn goes to shoot the dead children, we can sense his isolation and pride, being too difficult even for him to do.
I say this many years after I first watched it, but thank you to George A. Romero for this masterpiece. I can see the point. I enjoyed this film, the choice of locations, the direction, the lighting, the aesthetically pleasing set pieces and costume design and the funny zombie kills. It is just a shame that it was your last.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 5 out of 5.
It’s truly a 5 star movie. Give it a chance. It’s a masterpiece.
Strange World is a brand new animated movie by Disney. It focuses on a family who have to navigate through a foreign land where nothing is normal. Surrounded by a series of weird, fantastical creatures they must find the source of the problems in their world.
A film rated 74% by Rotten Tomatoes.
Runtime of approximately 1 hour 42 minutes.
It’s not a bad film, and offers some fun adventure time. But, it is also a far cry from previous Disney movies. Maybe it’s because I haven’t seen many of their new films that makes this come across so differently. Is this what Disney has moved toward?
I watched it yesterday expecting some good fun, but the movie was ultimately overshadowed by a lot of equality and what is referred to as virtue-signaling. One of the main characters is a young boy who is openly homosexual. Now I understand diversity but when it’s a kids film, it shouldn’t really be included as a normal thing.
From an action and adventure point it was fun, and I enjoyed the struggles of the characters as they battle through a weird mystical world to find the source or cause of the problems in their world. A world where they farm energy. Once inside the strange world things turn out even weirder, taking you through huge fields of breathing life, acidic lakes and tetradactyl like translucent birds. There’s no shortcoming of eye-candy, as an adult I thought it was enjoyable.
There is not much to say about it, since it would spoil the movie. I do recommend it, but I’d wait to rent it or watch it through the Disney+ when it’s released. It feels adventurous and fun. A living world our main characters have to get through. The music was somewhat familiar and didn’t feel that original. It also reminded me of the older movie Treasure Planet
Before Pierce Brosnan took the leap into James Bond, he played a variety of roles in action movies in which he is using guns. I can see now why they chose him. Take this 80s gem, Taffin, a hard-boiled and small movie with big drama and direction.
It was rated at 5.6/10 by IMDB which is a shame since I found it overall to be interesting, with characters that had clear motivations. There is drama, conflict, a bit of action, some violence, some nudity, and Brosnan as the hard edged Taffin which made the movie quite over played but enjoyable.
Taffin is a 1988 thriller film directed by Francis Megahy and starring Pierce Brosnan in the title role of Mark Taffin. It also featured Ray McAnally, Alison Doody and Jeremy Child. It is based on Lyndon Mallet’s book series.
Directed by Francis Megahy and with a runtime of approx. 1 hour 36 minutes it clocks in to be an easy evening viewing.
For those who want to see hard men doing hard things this is the film for you. Brosnan plays Taffin who is a no-holds-barred debt collector working freelance. Come the debt, come the Taffin. Soon though the little town he lives in comes under a much bigger threat, that of a new development plan on the local playing fields to build a chemical factory. It gets dirty, very quickly.
Taffin, determined not to get involved is pulled in for his love of the town. So are other people. What starts as a back and forth fight between the corps and the people turns bloody, with fighting, shooting, blackmail, threats, and death.
Taffin, being the man everyone relied on to help, is sadly left to do the dirty work and when the corps hire a freelance hitman – or whatever he is – to burn down a house resulting in a mans death, Taffin is blamed. He is blamed because the people new he was involved and suspected he took it too far. The people push him out despite him helping them when they needed it. In the end, he takes it to the top, he reaches the man he’s meant to reach and eventually flies off with his girlfriend.
A fairly abrupt ending but the film itself was tense, and I found it rewarding and interesting. Although the lack of reciprocation from the people to Taffin after the fire is disheartening.
This is a short review because it’s an easy to view film which doesn’t require much in depth analysis. You have people on opposite sides wanting different things, things turn ugly. This is still a very true albeit fictional account of things that happen in real life. Taffin is also an Irish movie with Brosnan being Irish (although a lot assume he is English because he played James Bond). It is certainly one of the more flamboyant roles, in which Taffin has the ego that could fill your living room.
The Banshees of Inisherin is a 2022 black tragicomedy film written and directed by Martin McDonagh. The film follows lifelong friends who find themselves at an impasse when one abruptly ends their relationship; Kerry Condon and Barry Keoghan also star. It reunites Farrell and Gleeson, who previously worked together on McDonagh’s directorial debut In Bruges.
Starring: Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson
Genre: Drama, Comedy, (Black comedy/tragicomedy)
Directed by: Martin McDonagh (In Bruges)
Highly rated by Rotten Tomatoes at 97% and IMDB at 8.2.
This review is based on a viewing of the movie yesterday. I was looking for something good to watch at the cinema after missing Bullet Train and found the movie called The Banshees of Inisherin starring reuniting stars Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson who had previously paired up in the black comedy In Bruges – also directed by the Martin McDonagh. I didn’t read any reviews prior to seeing the film and went with an open mind. Having seen the trailer it looked interesting enough.
So, the film starts off pretty quickly and there is no explanation or showing of the main characters relationship before this crisis hits them. Pádraic Súilleabháín (Farrell) and Colm Doherty (Gleeson) were obviously close friends having lived on the island for many years, sharing the same pub. However we are dropped right into Colm telling Pádraic that he no longer wants to be friends, and that he should stop talking to him. This last for some time, about half an hour of the film is this tension back and forth as the Irish men seperate and the locals who live on the island begin to take it seriously.
It is a rather sad and callous action for Colm to cut his friend off like this. But he reasons that it is because Pádraic is dull and talks **** for hours on end. Colm would rather have peace, play his violin and make music that Island will remember. This is occuring on an island off the coast off Ireland during the civil war, some time ago now. As the reality settles in and Pádraic struggles to find the reason, and finds it hard to accept, he is trying to make amends believing he is in the wrong, yet Colm doesn’t want to hear any of this.
After some time, Colm makes the ultimatum that every time Pádraic talks to him he’ll cut one of his left hand fingers off. The hand he plays the violin with. With time, and the two in silence not helping one another, Pádraic makes the mistake of talking to his ex friend, revealing to the pub goers, and island folk that it was no bluff. Despite living with his sister, Pádraic is lonely, and misses his friend, as is his sister. With time the loneliness grows. But Colm is pushed further and eventually cuts all fingers off.
As for the characters; interesting to say the least. The humour is very stark and black but does well in places. The over arching theme is loneliness, despite me thinking it was about something else entirely. The two best friends, now seperated because Colm wants peace, ultimately proves too much for Pádraic who can’t handle it. He’s soon talking to animals and keeping them in the house for company.
It is quite dramatic, yet quite tear jerking because the man can’t move on easily from this relationship. On the way the other island residents soon turn out to be just as callous. But it isn’t this that causes us to connect. We are seeing that the world here on the island is far sinister, it’s isolating. Something that we all can relate to. The friendship that was broken was strong on one end, but revealing on the other. Colm, potentially wrestling with his own demons is clearly not in his right mind to do these things, and neither is Pádraic.
What we are left with is a broken relationship and isolation on both ends. What should have been an amicable departure turns sour. Yes there is humour, but there is more drama. I was left hoping that something good would happen, but it sort of fizzles of at the end of the movie. The ending is abrupt and we have to piece together whether the men are friends again, or simply calling it quits on this fighting. There is some heart touching moments, and yet bitter moments. Characters struggle with the realities and some perish, telling of the high rates of depression among the isolated and indeed in those times – and even to this day.
What I wanted was more comedy, a bit more backstory into the friendship, like a scene of the two friends etc. Without this, it sort of plays out as a very weird, but likeable story. There is more to the men than we realise. There is more to the residents, to the island, to the story. This goes beyond a friendship breakup to the harrowing inner workings of a society held together literally by space and time.
Acting is super, and I didn’t expect less from the Irish pair Colin Farrel and Brendan Gleeson. It was a welcome reunion, and you can see that the pair on on form, at the top of their game. But they’ve always been good actors, this is just a very different acting style, almost like watching a play at the theater. The island location is beautiful, the decadent decaying homes of the farmers run down and revealing of their hearts desire. A movie I’d like to watch again. Although the dark air to the film is a little unsettling. Some genius somewhere will decode all the symbolism and things to tell us the real meaning and happenings in time.
This is far from a comprehensive review: so, thank you for reading! I give it generous: 4/5 because I like these sorts of movies, small places, tight acting, stringent storylines and potent drama.
A 2003 American psychological drama starring Ben Kingsley and Jennifer Connelly.
“Abandoned by her husband, recovering drug addict Kathy Nicolo, living alone in a small house near the San Francisco Bay Area, ignores eviction notices erroneously sent to her for nonpayment of business taxes. Assuming the misunderstanding was cleared up, she is surprised when Sheriff’s Deputy Lester Burdon arrives to forcibly evict her. Telling Kathy that her home is to be auctioned off, Lester feels sympathy for her, helps her move out, and advises her to seek legal assistance to regain her house.”
That is when Kingsley moves his family into the home after a lawful purchase and Kathy is intent on going back to regain her home. What appears a simple feud soon take a dark turn as the family is treated with hostility. Although they are a good family and have done nothing wrong. It highlights the perception people have of immigrants and how they are treated differently than those born in a country. From work, to home ownership they are looked down upon.
Since the feud seems to be growing, in a relatively small and tight plot, it does open big doors to much potential. But the narrative take a narrow turn and focuses entirely on the negative, the miserable and in the end everyone suffers and leaves you wondering just who suffered the most or if Kathy was indeed in the wrong… personally at the end of the movie I saw her as the one who had done wrong.
I think the acting is superb. And this little gem popped up on Amazon Prime and I’ve left it for a while because it looked cheap, but was good. Granted that in some places the plot was a little bizarre and the direction skewed and awkward but it added to the reality of the movie scenes. Lighting and quality was good, and so was the set pieces of the house.
It is also rated a 15 but in my honest opinion the themes are so strong and at times sickening that I really don’t recommend anyone under 18 to watch this. There are scenes of a violent nature, sexual scenes, self harm and more which are not for under 18 – so please consider raising the age movie critics.
Well this is short because to talk about the movie in depth would ruin it. It’s an adult psychological drama and I would argue borderline horror. It was interesting to watch this movie adaption which I took a chance on. Unfortunately it was a one time viewing and a such I deduct a star;
Top Gun: Maverick is from the start a complete and utter amazement of a movie. This is the man movie of the 21st century and a must see for anyone who likes planes, fighter jets, Tom Cruise, friendship and extremely actionable movie sequences involving life and death situations. Today, I had the pleasure of watching this unexpected gem of an action movie, welcome to the review!
It was rated at 97% by Rotten Tomatoes and at 78 by Metacritic.
The movie was directed by: Joseph Kosinski, and released on the 27th May 2022 in the United Kingdom. It has grossed $817.30 million dollars, and counting. Starring Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Val Kilmer and more! It is an action and drama movie. It runs at around 2 hours and 10 minutes.
“After more than thirty years of service as one of the Navy’s top aviators, Pete Mitchell (Maverick) is where he belongs, pushing the envelope as a courageous test pilot.”
Ladies and gentlemen I expected a copycat rehash and reboot, what I got was an interesting, action filled and feeling movie that really surprised me. It is not dragged out at all, and is always focused on the mission. Maverick (Cruise) is pulled from his edge of the seat role as aircraft test pilot where he pushes the limit until his superior Cain (Ed Harris) comes to pull him out and send him back to… TOPGUN. Maverick is assigned the task of teaching and training the class graduates of the Top Gun programme for a near impossible mission.
Of course this comes after a rollercoaster of an opening scene, which sees Maverick push an aircraft to mach 10, speeding round the atmosphere until he burns his aircraft up and ends up in the next shot walking into a bar and asking ‘where am I?’ to which a small child at the bar looks to a burned and ash covered face of Maverick and responds ‘earth.’ There are a few funny moments, but I didn’t find all of them funny like a lot of people, but they added humour in a way that diffuses any sad scenes, so the sad scenes don’t drag out too long. This film is positive, and has strong positive themes.
Maverick is now back to the training ground, back with old ‘friends,’ until he realises that one of the Top Gun graduates is Goose’s son, whom Maverick thinks still blames him for his fathers death. Throughout the movie we see that he is still struggling with Goose’s death and a big part of the movie, is forgiveness and acceptance and moving on. Maverick returns to Ice (Val Kilmer) now ailed and unable to speak, which reflects the actors real state, as Kilmer cannot speak anymore. He confesses before the deadly mission he cannot move on from Goose’s death, he doesn’t know how to. Of course, he and Rooster (Goose’s son) do have their differences, and they do get along, but Maverick is still conscious that he won’t ever be truly forgiven, or something like that.
During the training, the action of the movie cranks up, Maverick is shown what the top secret mission is, to target a small couple of feet vent and drop bombs, after navigating a small valley laden with SAMs. Training takes its toll, pushing the aircraft to the limit, pulling many Gs, pushing the Top Gun pilots to the limit. Rooster reminds Maverick of Goose to the point he pulls the young mans application to the navy academy because his mother didn’t want him to do it. I suppose the story has strong father and son tones, so it was fitting to watch it this father day.
It is the constant action in the training and the cool aerial shots and soundtrack that keep this movie at the top of its game. Maverick is not just an excellent fighter pilot, but he knows how to make the others the best too. That was why he was chosen. For this missions, of destroying a small target, it will take the best, and he selects 6 other people to do it, along with 6 on standby. Luckily nobody dies, but the training builds up in such a way to give the impression that someone will not make it out alive. Maverick suspects Rooster is not experienced or ready, yet decides to take him. It was nice to see Tom Cruise showing emotions on screen, shedding tears in his quest to move on, and this was what made me think ‘this is not just good acting, this is great acting,’ and you can really feel the emotions of all the characters.
The team are friends, are more than just pilots, this is a team and we get to feel connected to this group. There is 1 female out of the 12 selected, but I don’t think this detracted because she was in the main mission. But we move on and the mission is ready to begin, after 3 weeks of training, and crashes and near misses and intense dog fights. The main mission begins, and I couldn’t help but feel scared for them, they were extremely brave going into it, and Maverick, Tom Cruise acting is great. I felt like Maverick had the magic and more, years of experience making him the best of the best. It is all Hollywood blockbuster action, dropping bombs, intense dog fights, exploding bases, blowing up planes, losing flares, running low on fuel, being close to dying. This film kept me both entertained and on the edge of my seat.
I honestly believed in Maverick but suspected he would die, and he does get shot down after tackling rockets alone, but, to his aid comes Rooster, not only after he crashed but still as he was trying to retreat. Maverick after being shot down by these nameless enemies (I was unsure why nationality wasn’t disclosed unless it was out of fear of stoking tensions with eastern countries) Maverick is alive but forced to take shelter from a fighter helicopter, and here comes Rooster, who blows the chopper to pieces. It is amazing how good the scenes are, and the use of explosives. But Rooster is shot down, another heart wrenching moment, but of course the positive vibes of the movie meant he was still alive, and Maverick on his trail to show his hate of the youngster risking his life.
As we approach the end of the movie, Maverick and Rooster, on foot manage to penetrate the enemy base, and I had to hold my tongue because they slipped in, stole a jet and managed to take off on like 30 feet of concrete A little unbelievable but then again, the base was in chaos, destroyed and the enemy more concerned about other things. I thought that the action had been good so far with excellent shots of jets swerving the mountains and performing incredible aerial stunts but it didn’t last too long and when they escaped I kind of wanted them to be challenged. They were, as two new generation fighters get on their tail, an awesome dog fight ensues and luckily they are rescued by the standby crew, something that I found emotional. True bravery was demonstrated in this movie, and although fiction is likely not far off what real fighter pilots do.
So the movie comes to an end, we see Maverick back in his hangar fixing his aircraft, back to his place, and we get that happy ending. A film which didn’t drag on the sad things and kept us on our seats, fully immersed. Tom Cruise did well and I mean that, along with everyone else, it had a completely different feel than the first and is the first movie I have seen in a long time where I actually enjoyed every moment. I had my assumptions about a sequel, thinking it would be rubbish, but this movie really does stand alone, and does make references to the first movie, but it is done in such a way that they are merely flashbacks which have been used in movies before which didn’t even have a first movie.
Anyone who goes to the cinema should try this movie. RATING 5/5
“The film had its world premiere at the 48th Telluride Film Festival on September 2, 2021, and was released in limited theatres on November 19, 2021, by A24. It has received acclaim from critics, with praise for its performances, direction, and cinematography.”
“Johnny is a radio journalist traveling the country with his producing partners, interviewing children about their lives and their thoughts on the future. While in Detroit he calls his sister Viv; they had not spoken for the past year since their mother’s death from dementia. Viv asks Johnny if he can come to Los Angeles and watch her nine-year-old son Jesse, as she has to travel to Oakland to care for her estranged husband Paul struggling with mental illness.”
A dramatic and family based movie, one with a music score, direction and more that you don’t find in many movies now. Classical music to my taste and I suppose that works well. I watched it on Amazon Prime as it is recently added. A low key movie for Joaquin Phoenix because I personally, hadn’t heard of it until yesterday.
What we have is disconnected family. Johnny is already trying to connect with children about their own experiences and expectations in life, delving into big questions, not usually the sort people ask children. Like, ‘what do you think happens after you die,’ and ‘do you think this is real.’ I suppose the thought revolution has to begin somewhere. For the most part, adults don’t bother with these ideas as they would rather live in ignorance. So, getting into the care of his nephew, which I found to be quite heartbreaking. Why? Because the kid has been having issues at home, his mother is worried about his absent father, who is taken unwell, to a treatment facility. We don’t actually get all the answers as to what is going on with his father, but we can assume it is not good.
Naturally Johnny and Jesse have their differences, as Johnny tries to connect. But it does take some time. Yet with the movie shot in black and white, and the musical score, it sort of feels like it is going for a whole take on ‘what is life’, so that we as an audience can see what it is. Dramatic yes, the child Jesse is not to keen on opening up, but despite that Johnny has only good intentions in his heart and wants to try and be a good role model. Jesse is quite the unbearable kid at times, having his tantrums, running off etc. Johnny comes to a sad realisation that he cannot take care of Jesse any longer, because he thinks he is spoiled. I found it quite difficult to watch this part. There is a lot to read between the lines. Jesse doesn’t even want to go back to his mother, understandable I guess. It leaves Johnny in the position of either keep looking after him or send him back, but he sticks with it.
They are in Los Angeles, New York and New Orleans for most of the movie, but most time is spent focused on the interaction and chat of the two. Johnny is trying to learn about children, finding Jesse to be more withholding of emotions. The way the movie is produced and delivered is slightly different too. It makes use of books, with the the title and author shown on our screen as it is being read in the movie. I found this great, because we can go find those books if we want. They are for children, but the messages in ‘starchild’ or something like that, a book read to Jesse, delivers the message that we come from nothing, and will return to nothing. I think it’s more of an existential scene because I felt Johnny was the one struggling with the idea of dying alone. That is why the ending is difficult for him. Jesse will go and because of the distance, life and other variables is unlikely to see him for some time, although the movie seems to suggest that Jesse will forget, and they might never remember the time together.
It is a dramatic movie, about emotions, family, connection, existence, and the more deep questions like why are we here, and what do we need from life? I’m sure you will appreciate that this is considerably different to Joaquin Phoenix previous movies. I enjoyed the movie, it actually had substance and morality and these deep ideas about empathy and compassion, existence which we don’t see in life that much. Movies have taken on shallow meanings, however, I thought the acting, directing, delivery, scriptwriting and music and scene selection made for an effective art piece.
After a girls’ night out, endearingly awkward Deb wakes up in the apartment of the most attractive guy in Portland, Maine. Pretty boy Ryan only knows it was a mistake and ushers her out the door into a full-scale zombie apocalypse.
A horror | zombie | apocalypse | comedy | romance. Que Shaun of the Deadfemale counterpart.
Released | 2015
Run time | 1 hour 25 mins (movie is 1hr,20)
Starring | Maria Thayer & Michael Cassidy
IMDB |5.5/10 & Rotten Tomatoes | 88%
I took a chance as I saw this movie available on Prime Video. I wanted to watch it before but never had the chance. Overall, a good funny movie with some classic zombie tropes and unexpected yet hilarious twists. This is a short review!
So not your typical movie, it has the girl going after the boy, the better looking and rich boy who has a model looking ex-fiancé. After a one night stand it is the man who disregards the woman, which is somewhat expected, but she is looking for more. They are forced together after discovering what they believe are zombies.
The pair survive and the movie has good acting and dialogue. I thought it was a cheap made movie until it started. Then I realised it was actually worth it. Whoever wrote it well done, perfect chemistry between main characters. Gets somehow funnier when they arrive at his fathers house. Typical zombie fighting. She is a reporter and wants to be a news anchor.
What sets this movie apart is the realistic relationship between the couple, which develops as the movie progresses. I found it quite heartwarming, despite the humour which I found consistent. I was going to give 4 stars but am giving more because of a twist. It turns out his father was responsible for unleashing a parasite on the water supply, which cannot be transmitted through bites. The fact the movie addressed this was excellent, finally a film which acknowledges how poor a bite is at passing parasites! Anyway it is only those who drink the water who are infected.
Highlight is the easy viewing and comedy, not being over the top, dialogue being top notch and acting great. One scene involving a woman in lingerie bouncing on the bed which was mistaken for sex noises did have me red in the face. Maybe I’ve grown out of that sort of humour, although I found the reaction of the bloke downstairs hilarious (tearing a sandwich apart as he wanted to ‘bang her’ again). It’s smart and witty and not too complicated. We get the happy ever after. Touched my heart on more than one occasion because I am a big softie. Do I recommend this? Yes, I do, if you like zombie, comedy, romance or horror, then consider it. I think of this like a more feminine version of zombie movies simply because of the focus on the woman.
psychedelicwizard 