|
|
Post by geneweigel on Aug 31, 2020 11:38:59 GMT -5
Well polished and slick-looking. If taken as crime drama with weak sci-fi elements then its okay but the horror moments are not laid out right. Characters are cushioned and others are assumed to be who you are rooting for and others are not. We're supposed to be so focused on the main character's plight but her wake is a nightmare that we're not supposed to care about. Warning, it feels like a "Lifetime" movie with a lot of energy at points too.
I wish they went with the Depp period piece instead to make it a "Universe".
|
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Sept 1, 2020 7:24:40 GMT -5
With the classic Universal monsters, I suppose the choice is between doing period pieces to recapture the feel and intent of the original novels they are based upon, or totally remake them for modern times with only the 'concept' exported. So, invisibility as a concept is always going to have potential for development without necessarily being tied to THE INVISIBLE MAN novel (1897) by H. G. Wells or the classic Universal movie THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)... The concept is older than "The Ring of Gyges" from Plato and probably older than the "Cap of Invisibility" given to Hades by the Uranian Cyclopes for the war against the Titans... I remember when BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA by Francis Ford Coppola came out what I really liked about it was that tried to stay true to the novel moreso than other adaptations... But in the final analysis, that doesn't necessarily make it a good movie. In general, the concepts of the classic Universal monsters will always have potential, though, because the ideas of vampiric predators, creating or restoring life, reverting to the animalistic, uncovering ancient secrets, discovering megafauna, or being undetectable will always be fascinating to us as human beings.
What you described, Gene, sounds like a remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY (1991)!
|
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Sept 1, 2020 12:54:19 GMT -5
With the classic Universal monsters, I suppose the choice is between doing period pieces to recapture the feel and intent of the original novels they are based upon, or totally remake them for modern times with only the 'concept' exported. So, invisibility as a concept is always going to have potential for development without necessarily being tied to THE INVISIBLE MAN novel (1897) by H. G. Wells or the classic Universal movie THE INVISIBLE MAN (1933)... The concept is older than "The Ring of Gyges" from Plato and probably older than the "Cap of Invisibility" given to Hades by the Uranian Cyclopes for the war against the Titans... I remember when BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA by Francis Ford Coppola came out what I really liked about it was that tried to stay true to the novel moreso than other adaptations... But in the final analysis, that doesn't necessarily make it a good movie. In general, the concepts of the classic Universal monsters will always have potential, though, because the ideas of vampiric predators, creating or restoring life, reverting to the animalistic, uncovering ancient secrets, discovering megafauna, or being undetectable will always be fascinating to us as human beings. I honestly don't recall the novel at all but I did read it when I was young. This Universal universe just keeps failing because they keep rebooting it. What you described, Gene, sounds like a remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY (1991)! Actually, it was sort of. My daughter said the star is usually typecast as an oppressed female who has to struggle (MAD MEN, HANDMAID'S TALE shows). |
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Sept 1, 2020 14:29:11 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure they gave up on the DARK UNIVERSE after the disappointment of THE MUMMY and now they are just doing stand-alone movies. By the way, this shared universe of classic Universal monsters reminds me of this book and record I had as a kid... "A Story of Dracula, the Wolfman, and Frankenstein" illustrated by Neal Adams, by Power Records (1975): www.youtube.com/watch?v=Loo0eAnAIb4Elisabeth Moss played one of my favorite characters in MAD MEN... She went from young, naive and taken advantage of to one of the most competent and confident people on the show. She had a great arc and in some ways a reversal of Don Draper's, who starts out doing great but later on has a slide downward... I don't want to give away too many details if you've never seen it, but I highly recommend that show. |
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Sept 1, 2020 15:32:22 GMT -5
Franchises eventually fade. Abbott and Costello were probably the biggest franchise, then that crossed over into the "Monster Movies". If they had just lived a little longer we might have seen Abbot and Costello versus Godzilla... "Hey, Wilbur, why would a pretty girl like that want to spend time with someone like you? Whaa...? She's a metallic space worm?!?!?" <<<SMACK!>>>  |
|
