Scream 2 (1997) Review

Time: 120 Minutes
Age Rating: Violence and offensive language
Cast:
David Arquette as Dewey Riley
Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott
Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers
Sarah Michelle Gellar as Cici Cooper
Jamie Kennedy as Randy Meeks
Laurie Metcalf as Debbie Salt
Elise Neal as Hallie
Jerry O’Connell as Derek
Timothy Olyphant as Mickey
Jada Pinkett Smith as Maureen Evans
Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary
Director: Wes Craven

Sidney is in college and once again finds herself the target of a psychotic killer. However, this time, the killer’s murder count is higher and the killings more outrageous.

Scream was such a success back in 1996 that a sequel was quickly greenlit and released a year later. While sequels to popular movies are often considered to be not as good, this is especially the case when it comes to horror sequels. Despite this, Scream 2 is quite good.

Scream 2 takes everything from the original movie and amps it up, including the charm, intensity and meta humour. Although it does tread familiar ground, it’s still solid on the whole. It also feels more confident than the first movie, and I found it more fun to watch. It still balances horror and comedy well and the meta-commentary is back, with some added elements. Naturally a new aspect is sequels, with Randy giving rules about horror sequels, but there’s also commentary on media violence, especially with the events of the first movie being turned into a horror movie called Stab. The commentary really isn’t as effective as in the first movie, but I still liked it enough. Scream 2 does a good job continuing the story of the main characters and develops them more, giving the main 3 or 4 characters stronger character work. That being said, with a few exceptions, most of the new supporting characters weren’t as entertaining or memorable. Some characters like Sidney’s boyfriend particularly don’t have much to them. One welcome change was with the location, moving from Woodsboro to a college campus, and that does help the movie feel somewhat fresh. The plot twists aren’t quite as shocking as in the first movie. As for the reveals at the end, without getting into it too much, only half it really worked for me.

As said previously, the returning cast and characters in Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, and David Arquette fare better here than in the previous movie. Their characters get more screentime, and development, along with being performed well as usual. Cox and Arquette as Gail and Dewey particularly get a lot of attention and focus in this movie and are a highlight, their chemistry is great. There are some newcomers to Scream who are good, including Timothy Olyphant, Liev Schreiber, Sarah Michelle Geller and Jada Pinkett-Smith, with Olyphant being the standout for me.

I think that Wes Craven’s direction is better here than in the first Scream. While it doesn’t have a scene as memorable as the iconic opening scene with Drew Barrymore, there are some great set pieces that stand out over the first movie, whether it be the tense chase scenes, or other suspenseful sequences, with a standout scene involving a car. The violence is also amped up considerably, with more elaborate and creative kills. The music choices and the score from Marco Beltrami are good once again.

Scream 2 was better than expected, especially considering the behind-the-scenes production problems it experienced. It’s not as good as the first movie, with the twists and satire not hitting as hard, but if you liked that first film, the sequel is definitely worth checking out. At the very least, it is probably one of the better horror sequels.

Advertisement

Toy Story 2 (1999) Review

Time: 92 Minutes
Age Rating:
Cast:
Tom Hanks as Woody
Tim Allen as Buzz Lightyear
Joan Cusack as Jessie
Kelsey Grammer as Prospector
Don Rickles as Mr. Potato Head
Jim Varney as Slinky Dog
Wallace Shawn as Rex
John Ratzenberger as Hamm
Annie Potts as Bo Peep
Estelle Harris as Mrs. Potato Head
Wayne Knight as Al McWhiggin
John Morris as Andy
Laurie Metcalf as Andy’s Mom
Director: John Lasseter

When Woody is stolen by a toy collector, Buzz and his friends set out on a rescue mission to save Woody before becomes a museum toy property with his roundup gang Jessie, Prospector, and Bullseye.

Toy Story was such a surprise hit when it released, no one knew that it was going to be as successful as it was. With Toy Story 2 being a follow up to an animated classic, it seemed like it would never even reach the level of the original. Yet against all odds, it managed to top it successfully on pretty much every front, it’s bigger and better.

It would be hard to match what the original movie did, but Toy Story 2 manages to still be a Toy Story movie, while doing some different things and keeping things fresh. Once again, they’ve managed to make an animated movie that adult audiences can like and appreciate (both in terms of story and humour), while still making it very much accessible and entertaining for children. This time it’s about Woody coming to terms with his mortality. Pretty much everything from the story, to the characters, humour and more are back here, and even improved on. And yes, it is more funny and entertaining than the first movie, I haven’t seen the 4th movie but I feel comfortable in saying it’s the most memorable entry of the series. It feels larger scale, with a few exceptions, almost every scene in Toy Story took place between Andy’s house and Sid’s house. This time there are more locations that the characters visit, and they get very creative with the scenarios and set pieces. The rest of Andy’s toys didn’t get a lot of screentime in the first movie outside of the first and third acts, but they are present here throughout. The story on the whole is still straightforward and easy to follow, but it feels like the scope has been expanded just a little bit, it feels like much more is going on. Toy Story 2 is a little longer than the first movie at about an hour and 30 minutes long but the pacing is just as good.

The familiar voice cast return and as usual really deliver. Tom Hanks and Tim Allen once again do solid jobs as the characters of Woody and Buzz. The familiar characters of Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), Slinky (Jim Varney), Rex (Wallace Shawn), Hamm (John Ratzenberger) and more return. As I said previously, with the exception of Bo Peep (Annie Potts) and Mrs. Potato Head (Estelle Harris), most of Andy’s main toys get a good amount of screentime throughout. We also have the additions of Jessie (Joan Cusack), Bullseye and Prospector (Kelsey Grammar), who add quite a lot to this movie (and the first 2 would of course return to the other Toy Story sequels).

The animation has very clearly improved within 4 years, and you can tell that the moment you first see a dog in the movie. It doesn’t look great but it’s much better looking than the dog in the first Toy Story. All the toys look good, with none of them looking off at any point. Same goes for the human characters, when they are close up to the screen they actually don’t look freakishly lifeless unlike the first movie.

Toy Story 2 is an improvement over the first movie, and it’s especially impressive considering that it actually encountered production problems (and was originally envisioned to be a direct to video sequel). Needless to say, if you liked the first movie even a little bit, you’ll definitely like the sequel. It’s truly a Toy Story movie while improving and expanding on everything in just about every way.

Lady Bird (2017) Review

Time: 94 Minutes
Age Rating: Drug use, sex scenes & offensive language
Cast
Saoirse Ronan as Christine “Lady Bird” McPherson
Laurie Metcalf as Marion McPherson
Tracy Letts as Larry McPherson
Lucas Hedges as Danny O’Neill
Timothée Chalamet as Kyle Scheible
Beanie Feldstein as Julianne “Julie” Steffans
Stephen McKinley Henderson as Father Leviatch
Lois Smith as Sister Sarah Joan
Director: Greta Gerwig

Christine “Lady Bird” MacPherson (Saoirse Ronan) is a high school senior from the “wrong side of the tracks.” She longs for adventure, sophistication, and opportunity, but finds none of that in her Sacramento Catholic high school. LADY BIRD follows the title character’s senior year in high school, including her first romance, her participation in the school play, and most importantly, her applying for college.

I had been hearing some amazing things about Lady Bird for a while in the lead up to its release, it has also been such a big player in the Awards field. Naturally I had some high expectations for it. Lady Bird is another great coming of age story with great acting but most of all a really noteworthy directional debut by Greta Gerwig. While I don’t love it as much as most people, it still really is worth seeing.

Greta Gerwig’s script was great. This is a coming of age story and it doesn’t feel cliched at all, it feels real and genuine. In fact, that’s one of the best parts about the whole movie, it felt so real. The dialogue was seamless and feels real, and something you can imagine really being said. The events that happen aren’t really that predictable, and if they do things that you can predict, chances are they are doing it in a way that you wouldn’t expect. It balances out drama and comedy pretty well. It also felt like an honest depiction of growing up. As I said earlier, I didn’t quite love this as much as everyone, it didn’t really hit me on an emotional level. However there’s not exactly anything major in particular that I can point to that I have a problem with. As a coming of age story, it is pretty great, and it doesn’t feel predictable.

Saoirse Ronan is the titular character here and this is possibly her best performance yet. A lot of the movie is riding on her performance and Ronan killed it. She’s so lovable and really does feel like a teenager going through her late adolescence. The supporting cast was great as well. Laurie Metcalf was the stand out supporting performance as the mother and she deserves some praise as well. Both Saoirse and Laurie’s character have a complicated relationship, they are completely different people and this relationship is one of the biggest parts of the movie. Their conflicts feel genuine, they never feel forced and do exactly what you’d expect them to do, and the two have great chemistry. Other supporting actors like Tracy Letts and Lucas Hedges are also good in their roles and do their part. If there was a weak link, to me it’s Timothee Chalamet, I don’t know if it’s so much his acting, it might’ve just been the character. Something about it didn’t work so well and just felt rather distracting.

For a directional debut, Greta Gerwig did a solid job. It feels like a smaller movie and it kind of benefited from that. The direction was at the level it needed to be. It wasn’t really that great, and its really more the writing that stood out as opposed to the direction.

Lady Bird is pretty great. Greta Gerwig’s writing was wonderful, the acting (particularly from Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf) was great and it was just a really enjoyable movie that does some unique things. While I’m not sure that I’m loving it as much as everyone else, I do think that it is really worth seeing. Greta Gerwig’s directional debut was really good and I can’t wait to see her do even more work.

JFK (1991)

Time: 189 Minutes
Age Rating: Offensive Language
Cast:
Kevin Costner as Jim Garrison
Kevin Bacon as Willie O’Keefe
Tommy Lee Jones as Clay Shaw
Joe Pesci as David Ferrie
Laurie Metcalf as Susie Cox
Gary Oldman as Lee Harvey Oswald
Michael Rooker as Bill Broussard
Jay O. Sanders as Lou Ivon
Sissy Spacek as Liz Garrison
Director: Oliver Stone

New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) investigates the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22 1963 in Dallas, Texas. After looking deep enough, he suspects that there may be more to the story than the public is being told.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy is one of the biggest events in history and one of the most debated topics, especially when it came to conspiracy theories. I honestly didn’t know that much about the assassination before watching this film but after watching this movie it made me want to learn more about it. One of the things that makes JFK even better is the fact that these ‘characters’ are actually real people investigating what happened. The film isn’t just a documentary about possible scenarios of the president’s assassination; it follows Jim Garrison’s investigation. Whatever your thoughts on what happened with the assassination of John F. Kennedy are, this film is still worth a watch.

It was fascinating watching these real life people investigate the mystery as they try to piece everything together. If there is one thing you should know about JFK before watching it, it’s that it gets more interesting over time. It first builds up the events before the investigation and during those moments, viewers may feel a bit bored, however it is well worth the wait. This movie is also long – at about 3 hours and 10 minutes. The film also has a lot of details; there may be too much information to process at once; so viewers should keep that in mind before viewing it. People will definitely remember some facts more than others. My favourite part of the movie is the final act; it summarises every theory and discovery Garrison has found over the course of his investigation. I won’t spoil any of the scenes that happen in this movie because if you are like me – someone who didn’t know that much about the assassination, you will find all the scenes to be a great surprise.

The acting is top notch from everyone. The cast ranges from Kevin Costner to Tommy Lee Jones and Gary Oldman. All the actors in this movie are playing real life people and they definitely manage to feel like them. It may be easy to miss the acting while paying attention to the investigation but it still is really good and they should be applauded for their performances.

One of the most distinctive and defining things about this movie is the cinematography and the editing. When people make predictions or discover something that happened, it flashes back to the past and is cut in such a way that makes it feel like a documentary. Also, the film sometimes blends archive footage with new scenes with a 60s older look. A good example of great use of it again, is at the end. In the end, the film blends the real life moments recorded on camera in the 60s (such as Kennedy’s assassination) with the possible unseen (filmed for the movie). The soundtrack by John Williams is also great, as all his compositions usually are.

This movie should be seen, even just for learning about Jim Garrison’s search for the truth. I won’t mention what the scenario of the assassination is true; those are left up to the viewer. JFK can really get people talking about what they thought really happened, and can give people a different perspective on certain events in history. As someone who isn’t usually that interested or into conspiracy theories, I loved this movie and I recommend it to everyone. It is one of Oliver Stone’s best films.