thesar-2
Joined Dec 2007
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings2.3K
thesar-2's rating
Reviews2.3K
thesar-2's rating
WOW. That poster completely threw me.
As always, I love to go into movies as blind as possible. For Anora, I've been told, this is now the front-runner for Best Pic (announced tomorrow, 3/2/25,) so I figured I'd see this. That, the poster, title and one site calling it a comedy, drama, and "whimsical" movie. That's my entire pre-take. And what I imaged from that poster was far from reality.
For one thing, I swore this took place in Mexico or Spain. They're Russian. Also, the poster DID look like a whimsical, romantic comedy. It's not. In fact, I didn't recall a single joke in this entire movie. I *guess* somethings could be considered funny, but I don't think ANYTHING was meant as humor.
The title character goes by Ani and I really don't see the relevance in naming the entire movie off this really unlikable character. Though, at least she's not alone. This movie is 100% filled with unlikable or forgettable characters. ONLY the one cute henchman has some likability.
The movie revolves around stripper/dancer Ani/Anora who, I guess, falls for this Russian punk who throws around money willy-nilly and when his rich Russian family finds out they got hitched, the movie's real plot kicks in. They need to find the punk with an all-night search.
Actually, this movie really isn't about anything but said punk on the run, and we spend SO MUCH screentime looking for him to get the marriage annulled, even I spat out "God, will you just find him?" This movie is way too long.
I wouldn't say it was necessarily a bad movie. Everyone gives it their all and it's somewhat well-shot. It was mostly very DARK. Mercifully, it didn't bother me because the "Graphic Nudity" warning up front wasn't the kind I'm into. So, I didn't care if I couldn't see the nudity on screen or not.
This better not win Best Picture. Myself and the world will find out in about 26 or so hours. It's just I cannot see one single aspect of this movie that screams Best Picture. Heck, part of this "plot" steals from Pretty Woman, a movie 100x better suited for the Best Picture Oscar than this.
If you like to watch a ton of women having sex and being naked for a good fifth of your movie experience and also enjoy a very slow chase scene of trying to find one character, this is absolutely the movie for you.
For the record, female nudity absolutely doesn't bother me. That said, I do feel like I wasted $5.99 on this as a rental. I was expecting SO MUCH MORE. Especially for a "front-runner" for Best Pic.
Again, I hope this doesn't win.
***
Final Thoughts: Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we supposed to, at any time, believe either of these two people are in love? She may/may not be using him for his money, but she IS playing a role he wants. It's a win-win "business" deal.
As always, I love to go into movies as blind as possible. For Anora, I've been told, this is now the front-runner for Best Pic (announced tomorrow, 3/2/25,) so I figured I'd see this. That, the poster, title and one site calling it a comedy, drama, and "whimsical" movie. That's my entire pre-take. And what I imaged from that poster was far from reality.
For one thing, I swore this took place in Mexico or Spain. They're Russian. Also, the poster DID look like a whimsical, romantic comedy. It's not. In fact, I didn't recall a single joke in this entire movie. I *guess* somethings could be considered funny, but I don't think ANYTHING was meant as humor.
The title character goes by Ani and I really don't see the relevance in naming the entire movie off this really unlikable character. Though, at least she's not alone. This movie is 100% filled with unlikable or forgettable characters. ONLY the one cute henchman has some likability.
The movie revolves around stripper/dancer Ani/Anora who, I guess, falls for this Russian punk who throws around money willy-nilly and when his rich Russian family finds out they got hitched, the movie's real plot kicks in. They need to find the punk with an all-night search.
Actually, this movie really isn't about anything but said punk on the run, and we spend SO MUCH screentime looking for him to get the marriage annulled, even I spat out "God, will you just find him?" This movie is way too long.
I wouldn't say it was necessarily a bad movie. Everyone gives it their all and it's somewhat well-shot. It was mostly very DARK. Mercifully, it didn't bother me because the "Graphic Nudity" warning up front wasn't the kind I'm into. So, I didn't care if I couldn't see the nudity on screen or not.
This better not win Best Picture. Myself and the world will find out in about 26 or so hours. It's just I cannot see one single aspect of this movie that screams Best Picture. Heck, part of this "plot" steals from Pretty Woman, a movie 100x better suited for the Best Picture Oscar than this.
If you like to watch a ton of women having sex and being naked for a good fifth of your movie experience and also enjoy a very slow chase scene of trying to find one character, this is absolutely the movie for you.
For the record, female nudity absolutely doesn't bother me. That said, I do feel like I wasted $5.99 on this as a rental. I was expecting SO MUCH MORE. Especially for a "front-runner" for Best Pic.
Again, I hope this doesn't win.
***
Final Thoughts: Correct me if I'm wrong, but are we supposed to, at any time, believe either of these two people are in love? She may/may not be using him for his money, but she IS playing a role he wants. It's a win-win "business" deal.
I've seen Monkey Shines and this one was very dull.
I couldn't tell if this was a spoof or homage to Stephen King's work. Some of the many, many references to his works were either too on the nose (I rolled my eyes at Annie Wilkes) or like a tribute as if he had just passed away. It's also hard to tell if this was a spoof because, frankly, this is slapstick humor. And a ton of slapstick.
Maybe THAT was a reference to the slapstickness of Maximum Overdrive. Huh.
I really didn't care for this. It bounced all over the place to the point I had to physically keep asking, "Who's that again? And how does he fit in with the story?" Also, there were a ton on inconsistences in the story/worldbuilding. Sometimes you have to turn the key, sometimes it just happens.
Be prepared for King's greatest hits: we have the obligatory dead-beat dads, the bullies and the 50s references, despite this somewhat set in 1999. Funny enough, and I might be wrong, I didn't see his cameo. But, then again, this is almost a two-time watch for the 1,001 King Easter Eggs.
The Monkey is (NOT) a toy that allegedly kills people in mostly Final Destination ways if you turn its key. Two repeatedly annoying identical twin brothers who look nothing alike get a hold of said Monkey and strange deaths occur.
I've never gone as far as to rank King's adaptations, though I would love to someday. There's just so many of them and I am absolutely certain I haven't seen them all. (Though, I'd guess I've seen 90% of his movies.)
That all said, I'd probably rank this with Dreamcatcher towards the bottom, but definitely right above that. I really hated Dreamcatcher even though it started off good. This one, I didn't hate, but it was just as meh with also a promising opening.
And that "comedy???" Sheesh, most of it didn't land and felt really forced. Also, it'll was like two blends of humor-types that didn't mix well.
Cannot recommend this movie whatsoever. It certainly could've been better - maybe next time they'll spend more than 36 hours on the script.
***
Final Thoughts: Despite all the above, I'm now very curious to read the book. Thank goodness it's one of his short stories because if this is a faithful adaptation, I don't wanna waste another 98 minutes of my life.
I couldn't tell if this was a spoof or homage to Stephen King's work. Some of the many, many references to his works were either too on the nose (I rolled my eyes at Annie Wilkes) or like a tribute as if he had just passed away. It's also hard to tell if this was a spoof because, frankly, this is slapstick humor. And a ton of slapstick.
Maybe THAT was a reference to the slapstickness of Maximum Overdrive. Huh.
I really didn't care for this. It bounced all over the place to the point I had to physically keep asking, "Who's that again? And how does he fit in with the story?" Also, there were a ton on inconsistences in the story/worldbuilding. Sometimes you have to turn the key, sometimes it just happens.
Be prepared for King's greatest hits: we have the obligatory dead-beat dads, the bullies and the 50s references, despite this somewhat set in 1999. Funny enough, and I might be wrong, I didn't see his cameo. But, then again, this is almost a two-time watch for the 1,001 King Easter Eggs.
The Monkey is (NOT) a toy that allegedly kills people in mostly Final Destination ways if you turn its key. Two repeatedly annoying identical twin brothers who look nothing alike get a hold of said Monkey and strange deaths occur.
I've never gone as far as to rank King's adaptations, though I would love to someday. There's just so many of them and I am absolutely certain I haven't seen them all. (Though, I'd guess I've seen 90% of his movies.)
That all said, I'd probably rank this with Dreamcatcher towards the bottom, but definitely right above that. I really hated Dreamcatcher even though it started off good. This one, I didn't hate, but it was just as meh with also a promising opening.
And that "comedy???" Sheesh, most of it didn't land and felt really forced. Also, it'll was like two blends of humor-types that didn't mix well.
Cannot recommend this movie whatsoever. It certainly could've been better - maybe next time they'll spend more than 36 hours on the script.
***
Final Thoughts: Despite all the above, I'm now very curious to read the book. Thank goodness it's one of his short stories because if this is a faithful adaptation, I don't wanna waste another 98 minutes of my life.
Too bad he couldn't have just turned into a bat and got to his love swifter.
It's hard to dislike this latest update on the Dracula-rip-off. It's just so absolutely gorgeous looking and wholeheartedly earned that Cinematography Oscar Nod. And it's well-shot, to boot.
My issue is...aside from the nudity and year, I saw nothing new. Nothing to distinguish this from the other incarnations, aside from maybe Count Olaf's design/speeches. So, okay, kudos to that.
Definitely didn't hate it, though it was rather long and always hard to get through all the new mortgage/travelling arrangements we're always prisoner to when Drac...er, Count Orlok moves from Transylvania to England (or wherever.) The acting was fine, except for the over-the-top Willem Dafoe who apparently thought he was in a different movie.
The synopsis is as old as the original Bram Stoker novel. Count "Dracula" Orlok gets awaken by his burning love across the world and must travel to her. She, in turn, goes into convulsions until he arrives. In conjunction with that, blood-sucking occurs.
And that's pretty much the whole movie. Character A needs to get to Character B for over two hours of screentime.
Full disclosure, I am fully aware of the history of the original 1922 German film and lawsuit, etc. Honestly, despite that being a blatant and stolen knockoff, I much prefer that version. (I can't speak for the 1979 take. I have yet to see it.)
While the 2024 update was beautiful to look at and I liked how it was filmed, was this entirely necessary to remake this again? I think not.
***
Final Thoughts: Hot take: I'm not a Nicholas Hoult fan and this didn't change my mind. That said, he and anyone else will always better than when Keanu Reeves played the part.
It's hard to dislike this latest update on the Dracula-rip-off. It's just so absolutely gorgeous looking and wholeheartedly earned that Cinematography Oscar Nod. And it's well-shot, to boot.
My issue is...aside from the nudity and year, I saw nothing new. Nothing to distinguish this from the other incarnations, aside from maybe Count Olaf's design/speeches. So, okay, kudos to that.
Definitely didn't hate it, though it was rather long and always hard to get through all the new mortgage/travelling arrangements we're always prisoner to when Drac...er, Count Orlok moves from Transylvania to England (or wherever.) The acting was fine, except for the over-the-top Willem Dafoe who apparently thought he was in a different movie.
The synopsis is as old as the original Bram Stoker novel. Count "Dracula" Orlok gets awaken by his burning love across the world and must travel to her. She, in turn, goes into convulsions until he arrives. In conjunction with that, blood-sucking occurs.
And that's pretty much the whole movie. Character A needs to get to Character B for over two hours of screentime.
Full disclosure, I am fully aware of the history of the original 1922 German film and lawsuit, etc. Honestly, despite that being a blatant and stolen knockoff, I much prefer that version. (I can't speak for the 1979 take. I have yet to see it.)
While the 2024 update was beautiful to look at and I liked how it was filmed, was this entirely necessary to remake this again? I think not.
***
Final Thoughts: Hot take: I'm not a Nicholas Hoult fan and this didn't change my mind. That said, he and anyone else will always better than when Keanu Reeves played the part.