Uncanny (2015).
I really enjoyed this movie. This is not a spoiler, but it’s about an MIT grad who builds “Adam,” an artificial intelligence that is indistinguishable from an actual human being. The plot is very similar to Ex Machina, and has a twist at the end that I didn’t see coming.
I remember reading the book and enjoying it. Not unlike “Jurassic Park”, once you get past the too hard to believe parts, “Congo” was an enjoyable adventure story. So I was excited to hear they were going to make a movie. As I read the book, I remember thinking “this would make a great movie”.
To say I was “disappointed” with the movie would be a gross understatement. It was one of those “how could they mess this up ?” scenarios. I guess when you decide that your special effects (starting with the talking gorilla) need only match the effects in “Star Trek V”, it can only go downhill from there.
It was one of those movies that, as I tried to analyze just why I was hating it, I came up the fact that I cared for NONE of the characters.
BTW, for those mentioning movies here, it would be nice if you mentioned how you saw it. It would save me the trouble of checking if it’s available on one of my streaming services.
I think Google or somewhere like JustWatch would be better to figure that out, honestly. If someone says “I watched this on Peacock”, and you don’t have Peacock, that doesn’t mean it’s not available on Amazon Prime (which you might have).
Oh, I know and I’ve gone and looked up mentioned movies on Justwatch (though I wonder what sites it’s missing) but am lazy and would prefer that others provide that info to me.
I have Netflix, but sometimes when the new movies are not available there yet, I watch them online. Since I’m kind of impatient myself. The best online provider out there is Reddit imo.
Anyway, I watched the hype movie Cruella the other day. I was pleasantly surprised with this one. It’s actually had emotional depth and good character development. I’m glad they made it longer to really explore it and do the story justice. It is a good movie overall. This is one to watch. I’m happy they’re making a sequel to it.
Another for In The Heights (HBO Max), concurring mostly with the opinions of Mahaloth and QuercusAlba above. Music and dancing are fantastic. The story…kind of thin and stretched, like butter over too much bread. (I recently heard an interview with the woman who wrote the book, which must have been an easy paycheck. There are perhaps 20 minutes of dialog in this 2:25 movie – the rest is singing and dancing.)
Thanks for the tip to stay through the end of the credits!
Slaxx - streams on Shudder
★★ out of ★★★★★
Gist: Skip it unless you really love the idea of an “evil pants” horror movie.
Yes, this movie is about a pair of evil jeans that come to life, kill workers at a clothing store, and then drinks up their blood. I would like to believe that somewhere there is a way to make a movie, but this movie kind of shows that it is not an easy task. I think the filmmakers tried quite hard with this movie, but there just isn’t enough to work with to make the movie worth watching. Late in the movie, we learn some details that flesh out why the pants have come to life, but it doesn’t make enough of an impact to elevate the movie above “evil pants attacking” movie, which is all it is.
Pros:
The pants effect is pretty good
Good example of budget movie-making. One location, small cast.
The anti-corporation message is pretty spot-on
Cons
It’s not scary at all
It’s not funny at all
Characters almost entirely paper-thin
Instantly forgettable
I wouldn’t really recommend this movie to anyone unless you absolutely adore the premise. Perhaps people who have worked in the clothing industry would find some enjoyment? I haven’t and I did not.
Repo Man - Blu-ray
★★★1/2 out of ★★★★★
Gist: Worth your time, but not quite the classic some hold it to be.
I may be guilty of simply missing the boat on this one. I fully admit that if I saw this movie in 1984, I would have been very happy. Isn’t it nice to just see something completely original and quirky and totally outside-the-box? It is even now, but I think that in the 1980’s, this movie probably meant a lot more to people who had a lot less options for films and entertainment.
Well, the movie is about a young man who becomes a Repo Man and along the way, we learn about the very different and dangerous world he lives in. If I had to classify the movie, I’d say it was mainly an odd-comedy with some morbid humor. It never goes too far with any of this though and it remains firmly in the fun-camp of movies. Very creative, shot on what appears to be a small budget, it makes great use of its money and is helped by obvious craft in skill in movie-making. I had fun watching it and will not forget it.
Pros:
Really unique and memorable
Quite funny in parts
Oddly captivating
A great script and filled with great performances, especially Harry Dean Stanton
Cons:
A few duller sections(don’t crucify me!)
I think Emilio Estevez was not the best choice. He just kind of…is there.
If I had been to the theater in 1984, I think I would have left and told all my friends about this very strange, kind of out of nowhere movie called Repo Man. It does appear to be somewhat of its time and I think a review almost 40 years later needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It clearly is a movie from the 80’s that is kind of….about the 80’s in many ways. I liked it today, but probably would have raved about it in 1984.
We just watched Nomadland. Enjoyed it, looked fantastic, Frances mcdormand was great. A meandering story and I am sure the word poignant in a good way is needed. 10/10 would watch again.
Finally watched Chinatown (Netflix) and The Two Jakes (Amazon Prime). They’d been on my list forever but never got around to seeing them. I knew very little about both of them but really enjoyed them.
I also watched License to Kill (Hulu, I think). It’s still my favorite 007 and Bond film. Not perfect, but enjoyable.
Uncanny - streams on Hoopla
★1/2 out of ★★★★★
Gist: Predictable and poorly acted. Skip it.
Uncanny is a low budget sci-fi movie, but the budget is not what takes it down. It has a very predictable story and the acting is only minimally effective at best. The story is about a scientist who has perfected A.I. so well, he has created an android that appears to be fully human. The rest of the story is really just not that interesting and I saw any potential twists and story turns a mile away. I probably would have quit this movie under different circumstances, but I kept going just to see if it would improve. It did not.
Pros:
Competent film-making on a low budget (this is not a Neil Breen level movie!)
Decent premise, the opening 30 minutes lifted my hopes somewhat
Cons:
Totally predictable and disappointing plot
Acting is just barely acceptable
Really boring for the most part
Massively disappointing and stupid post-credit scene
Thinks it is smart, but is not
Again, every plot point/twist lands like a dull thud
I wouldn’t recommend this movie to anyone. If I made this movie for a university film class, I’d be very proud as it is competent and would impress my friends and family. Widely released, however, it just isn’t good enough to make an impact. Skip this movie entirely.
Censor - rent on Amazon
★★★★ out of ★★★★★
Gist: Haunting and unsettling, well worth your time
Censor is the type of movie that builds up slowly and ultimately lives and dies on the quality of its third act. If you do not enjoy the final 30 minutes of this movie, you will most definitely leave it disliking the entire experience. I found the final act of the movie to be not only powerful, but excellent payoff for what we had seen up to that point and I ended up really enjoying this movie.
Censor is about a movie censor around the time that Video Nasties were a major issue over in the UK. Essentially, horror movies were coming out that were too disturbing or intense for the public and censors were employed to filter these movies out. The protagonist begins to suspect some things about the movies she watches and decides to investigate. To say any more would reveal too much, but I would say that the story really pulled me in and held me until the end.
Pros:
Very intense
Extremely well acted by Niamh Algar, who carries the entire movie
Wonderful first major movie from a new director
Final act is gripping, intense, and actually quite frightening
Cons:
Slightly slow beginning
Requires some serious suspension of disbelief
I can see some people disliking how this movie plays out and I can also imagine this movie being rather divisive. I’d recommend it to almost anyone and I will be watching this director in the future to see what she creates.
For a great film covering some of these issues, I highly recommend Ex Machina, if you haven’t seen it yet.
I have and it is much better. I do see that Uncanny was made first, but held in the can for a few years.
Budget differences aside, Ex Machina is just hugely superior no matter what.
Over 100 degrees, so on the couch I remained all day. Watched Source Code. What utter crap. Just stupid and redundant. No real story at all. Mind-bogglingly dumb. Complete waste of time. I lost interest and started reading stuff here on the Dope after about 15 minutes.
I really liked that movie but I found it profoundly disturbing. Like I had to take a few hours to recover after watching it.
Yeah, it really stuck with me, too - the mark of a great movie, I believe.
I got a copy of Nosferatu and watched it.
Not the Murnau film, from 1922, but the Herzog remake from 1979, with Klaus Kinski playing the title role. I had seen it when it first came out, but not in the 42 years since. Firthermore, I read at the time that they filmed it in both English and German (not merely dubbed – they actually shot the film twice, with the same actors speaking their lines in two different languages). But the story is that when they showed the English-language version at a film festival in the US it was laughed off the screen. This was my chance to finally see the English language version and see how it is.
I’ll tell you – boring. This may be the dullest and slowest-moving horror film ever made. Visually, the film is gorgeous. I’m reminded of the movie Transylvania 6-5000 where Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr say “Transylvania is…nice!” It is. Transylvania looks far too gorgeous to be scary. Klaus Kinski, like Max Schreck before him, looks like a humanoid rat with pointy ear and pointy incisors and a bald head, but he lives in an impeccable whitewashed castle* . The Addams family’s home looks creepier. And throughout the film you have this perpetual background drone of a men’s chorale that’s supposed to be spooky but is merely soporific. Pepper Mill watched the first half with me, but couldn’t be persuaded to watch the rest.
As for being laughed off the screen, I couldn’t really se that. You can’t laugh at something this slow-moving. And tthere’s nothing really wrong with the English-language version. I suspect it’s just tat, in German and with English subtitles, it looks more like an “art” film, so people are willing to cut it more slack. Art films can have incredibly long, lingering shots with monotonous soundtracks and move with glacial speed, and get taken seriously.
I can see why it got high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and other websites. It is gorgeously shot and well-made. But if you wanted to be entertained by a 1979 film adaptation of Bram Stoker’s story, I guarantee that you’d have a better time watching the John Badham/Frank Langella film Dracula.
*Dracula’s “castle” in the movies come in two varieties, I’ve noticed – either a crumbling, often cobweb-covered, dusty great ruin of a stone castle, or a snug comfy house. There seems no middle ground. The 1979 Nosferatu lives in a comfy home, even if there are a few broken windows. Christopher Lee in the 1959 Horror of Dracula lived in a very comfy home, indeed. And the Jack Palance/Dan Curtis version from the 1970s looked as if it was filmed in someone’s living room.