On point as always sir.
Thanks for writing, Pete. But "top 10 movies of all time"? Wow. Just ... wow.
And while I greatly enjoy The Fifth Element, Jurassic Park and Independence Day, if sci-fi is your favorite genre, might I recommend 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Fritz Lang's Metropolis and many others made BEFORE the 1990s?
Matt, just because the movie had you thinking at the beginning that it was going to finish out as a good version of Battlefield Earth (based on the storyline at the beginning) and then took a different path (more reminiscent of an Outer Limits or Twilight Zone episode) doesn't make it a lesser movie with plot holes as you claim (and there were zero plot holes btw). I, for one, put Oblivion in my top 10 movies of all time, with sci fi being my favorite genre. It's right up there with The Fifth Element, Jurassic Park, and Independence Day. Your reviews are starting to become as useless as Lawrence Toppman's became ages ago. (And no, that is not a compliment being compared to Toppman.) --Pete
What are you talking about? What questions are unanswered? Seemed pretty wrapped up to me.
Typical liberal. No historical context. Fact is
So I'm guess ing that in your twisted liberal thinking, he should never have been able to play baseball on a white team because he was not a democrat?
I have often thought if they can only deliver a marginal remake, why not re-release the original? Remakes tend to not have the charm of the original, examples being "Fright Night," "Footloose," "Clash of the Titans," etc. Would it not be cheaper to just distribute to theaters a "remastered" version? Also, you get the nostalgia crowd as well as the new audience. And it's basically the first weekend or two the studios care about. I will most likely wait until DVD for this "Evil Dead" or just pop in my DVD of ... you guessed it, the Sam Raimi version.
Thanks for keeping your review spoiler-free. I was thinking about seeing this and you put me over the fence that I was straddling.
Hi, Megan. Thanks for writing. Actually, 2-1/2 stars is a mixed review -- in between positive and negative -- and therefore can be either slightly thumbs up or slightly thumbs down. There was enough I liked about the film to marginally recommend it with reservations -- as long as one isn't comparing it to the original.
"Even as a huge fan of The Evil Dead, it's impossible to wholeheartedly embrace this one when just last year we were treated to a cabin-in-the-woods yarn -- The Cabin in the Woods, of course -- that carried on Raimi's legacy far better than this film does."
How was this a positive review and why did you give a certified fresh rating then?
Anyone care to explain the prologue to the film? What was the point of it?
I have said many of similar things that you have said about the "Evil Dead" remake.
I wanted to like it more than I actually did, as you stated. I enjoyed my whole experience with the remake, however, I felt the character of Mia had progressed so far, there is no where she can go in sequels and the forever-waited "Army of Darkness 2" that is to come.
The gore was top-notch, the acting was atrocious (then again, the original wasn't the best), but there was something not right about the remake that I loved about the original. Heart?
PS - I nearly wet myself when you referred to Natalie as David's "personality-free girlfriend." Well played, sir.
Hi, bongostella. Thanks for writing. Actually, the debate as to whether EDII is a remake or a sequel continues to rage on, as evidenced by the countless message boards all over the Internet offering "evidence" for one viewpoint or the other (for starters, check some of the threads on IMDb). Sam Raimi himself has even called the second one a sequel (though, for all I know, he might also have referred to it as a remake at some point).
Evil Dead II was not a sequel. It was a remake of the first, and a much
better and frightening film.
Thank you for this excellent review! I've read so many critics that just don't get this film at all. "Stoker" is art, but it's not pretentious or inscrutable.
I too liked it from the captivating title credits on and including the final scene. I love the timeless, isolated quality of the characters and the austere grandeur of the house.
I think most critics have forgotten what it's like to watch a FILM. Not just moving pictures that tell a story or looking for a scary thrill ride. They need to remember what it's like to just enjoy a filmmaker's vision. - Tinsel & Tine
Calling the new Die Hard a debacle pretty much lets us know you shouldn't be reviewing action movies. Ever.
Agreed, @Robert. It hauntingly describes two who choose to walk onward together to meet and endure their fate, rather than seek medical, emotional or spiritual care in a community. It's unclear whether they see higher satisfaction, dignity and integrity in mutual dependence, or they distrust others' abilities and values, or see insult in medicating and prolonging Anne's inevitable demise. Whichever is the case they choose to trust in each other.
Would Anne receive better health and personal care in a medical institution? On one level, yes. Would she be happier? Maybe for some amount of time, but she can't seem to envision life being worth it without being able to participate in music, art, love. Would she be happier if institutional care made Georges life easier, happier? Would Georges be happier? That's a great, unanswered question of this film, but he chooses to do what he thinks will make her happier, even if that's a lesser of two evils.
The challenge of this film is the nature and role of transcendent meanings for these two individuals. Do they have anything to offer to anyone else and does that matter to either of them? Do they see any hope beyond their present physical-emotional state? Those are questions the film does not try to answer, but rather leaves each viewer to experience and appreciate the choice these two persons make in their world. Then each of us can wrestle with own life choices.
You're kidding, right? You DID watch the Twilight series before writing this bull, right?
Yes this was a beautiful courageous film. Were some small percentage of our directors and producers to share the same beautiful courage our films would produce a deeper more profound world in which to swim. But I must say the story we see here portrays a suffering that is as much the product of the support these two dear old people didn't have as it did inevitable physical decline. I would have probably called this film "Amour, Together, Alone".
It makes me sad to see all the bad reviews this movie is getting, though it’s not exactly surprising. I’m sure I’ll end up seeing A Good Day to Die Hard eventually. I can’t help it, I love Bruce Willis.
Powered by Foundation