William Staber

The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It Review

Horror films are something that either appeal or they don’t. Some people absolutely love them, others see no reason as to why you would want to pay for a ticket to be scared, but personal pretense aside the newest release in The Conjuring series ‘The Devil Made Me Do It’ is a bit all over the place. Revolving once again around the protagonists and notorious ‘demonologists’ Ed and Lorraine Warren the two are once again faced with yet another strange demon story and yet another demonic force to face off against, the result is what can really only be described as a disappointingly mediocre entry to a legendary series .

It’s hard to sit on either side of the fence as far as The Conjuring 3 goes, there are some great parts but also some truly destructive ones that take away from the experience as a whole, with the added unfortunate overwhelming amount of cliché that tends to plague so much of this genre in the modern day.

The film is based on the true story surrounding the events of Trial of Arne Cheyenne Johnson in 1981 in which Arne was said to be ‘possessed by the devil’ when he murdered his then landlord, his defence henceforth claiming that he did not hold personal responsibility for the crime. It was said that Arne had become possessed by the demon during the exorcism of then 11 year old David Glatzel whom under Ed and Lorraine’s watch had been exorcised as a last-effort move from the family whom had supposedly witnessed increasingly and continuous concerning behavior from the young boy. The exorcism was recounted as a violent, disturbing event during which time Arne, whom was present as Debbie Glatzel’s partner demanded that the demon ‘take him instead’. Ed and Lorraine Warren claimed it was then that the demon exited David Glatzel and entered Arne Johnson, later bringing him to murder his landlord Alan Bono, stabbing him over 20 times with a pocket knife.

This was the first unlawful killing in the history of Brookfield, Connecticut and ‘The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It’ follows the story of Ed and Lorraine Warren as they try to discover the source of the demonic behavior that allegedly led to the possession of Arne Johnson.

Before anything is said about the plotline or creative direction of this misguided piece of work it would only be fair to recognize the cast for doing the best they could with what they had. Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga have well and truly proven themselves in the horror genre and despite a less-than-great film still hold a very good standard of individual work. After all these years their chemistry on screen is something to be regarded very highly for any future endeavors. Ruairi O’Connor as well was fantastic in his depiction and arguably the best on-screen as he played the mentally wayward and demonically possessed Arne Johnson, he was able to perfectly depict down to the constant shifting of the eyes exactly what you’d imagine someone possessed by demons would look like. Sarah Catherine Hook and Julian Hilliard also deserve considerable applause for their work depicting the Glatzels.

But unfortunately the cast can only do so much, and even with a proven level of quality in your people ‘The Conjuring 3’ isn’t able to back it up with the same quality of writing or creative direction. Turns of plot that have no real depth, little character development outside of Arne-Johnson and a strange overarching agenda all of which leading to a long, drawn out climax lead the film off the path of success and away from it’s roots which had proven so prolific in the past.

That being said, the set pieces of this film are fantastic, the continued creativity of the scene work and the big-budget effects coupled with impressive camera shots make for a visually impressive and undoubtable eye-pleasing viewing. Scenes such as that with the waterbed or the (albeit cliché) proceeding terrifying scene in the bathroom when David Glatzel faces the demons that have grasped onto his consciousness make for a film that still keeps a viewer on the edge of their seat here and there, but doesn’t quite live up to the bone-chilling quality of its predecessors.

Period accurate and extravagant set design aside, a mismanaged pace of plotline and wayward choice of direction seem to slow ‘The Conjuring 3’ down past the point of necessity and become destructive to its success. Switching with no real grace between several convoluted plotlines the film seems to disregard the terrifying simplicity that had made the previous entries into this series such powerful works. Various scenes feel unnecessary and whilst expansive set work is nice here and there it should never become center-stage to the plotline. You can’t help but feel disappointed by the lack of creativity as far as actual horror goes for a series that had done so well in the past to capture the essence of what made human beings crumble.

Unfortunately, perhaps the most redeeming factor of ‘The Conjuring 3: The Devil Made Me Do It’ is the intrigue in the fact that the events depicted (regardless of the actual truth of that depiction) are based off real-life events, something that has impressively never previously played so much of a redeeming role in the series. ‘The Conjuring 3’ seems to have lost sight of what made the previous films so successful and attempts to push the confusingly positive agenda that the case of Arne Johnson was one that deserved sympathy. Occasional comedic relief is well timed and overall the piece still holds a respectable level of terrifying suspense, however it can be said without a doubt that the latest release in ‘The Conjuring’ series is by far its weakest.
5/10

Why The Office (US) Is The Gold Standard Of Sitcoms

The US version of The Office is the absolute gold standard of sitcoms. Nine seasons over eight years of running starting in 2005 and ending in 2013 The Office is arguably the single most recognized sitcom around the world today and for good reason. Masterminded by Ricky Gervais and pushed forward by a perfectly casted set of actors and actresses there is no doubting the quality of The Office which sets the bar for all future sitcoms.

But why is The Office on the top shelf of its genre?

Casting

Lets start with the casting, The Office has arguably the best cast of actors and actresses ever assembled for one single sitcom. There are no bad picks, not a single person could be switched out for anyone else and each role is played to its absolute best. Jenna Fischer (Pam Beasly), John Krasinski (Jim Halpert), Rainn Wilson (Dwight Schrute) and Steve Carell (Michael Scott) makeup what I suppose you could call the key characters and each one never fails to disappoint. Their chemistry on screen, dedication to the roles and connection to their characters make The Office the genius piece of work that it is, making such a simple concept on surface level so addicting to watch episode after episode.

John Krasinski reunites with 'The Office' cast to do show's wedding dance

You see these characters portrayed so well that you become so quickly familiarized with the intricate details of each of them and dedicated to their stories as time goes by. This is all without even mentioning the stupidly talent-stacked set of personnel held outside of those key roles in the form of people such as Ed Helms, B.J Novak, Craig Robinson, Angela Kinsey, Mindy Kaling, Ellie Kemper, Brian Baumgartner, Paul Lieberstein, Kate Flannery and so many more.

The casting effort pulled off in this series is beyond remarkable with every single person seeming so comfortable in their roles it was as if they were just playing themselves. You can tell that these people loved what they did and were so passionate for the show and their various characters that to say this came out in the final cuts would be the greatest of understatements.

Character Arcs

The perfect sitcom positions itself in good standing on both comedic and plotline footings, it can sway slightly to either side here and there but must maintain both in equal stead throughout its course. The problem with so many sitcoms is that they attempt to push so hard on the comedic aspect of the production that they leave a lot left to be desired in the plotlines, particularly in the form of lacking character development or character arcs. The Office never even shows even a slight glimpse of this issue.

Throughout its course The Office slowly builds up a number of complex and intertwining character arcs that are so perfectly written and developed that you cant help but get invested in each and every one of them. From the central love story of Jim and Pam, to Pam and Michael’s friendship, to Dwight and Jim’s rivalry turned brotherhood the list of developing plotlines within this series is nothing short of astounding, all within the simple setting of just one ‘Dunder Mifflin Paper Company’ office.

The Office Wanted to Divorce Jim and Pam in Final Season

You get so enthralled in these character arcs over the course of the nine seasons that in many ways the comedic genius actually tends to become something of an added bonus. There are no stones left unturned in the writing of The Office and each character (including those with less screen time) has their own individual story to tell. The actions of each character have serious implications on the lives of the others and at no point is any character out of the loop so much that they become irrelevant to the storyline.

The Office jumps all over the place going through episodic periods in which certain characters and their arcs are focalised and the seamless changes between the particular storylines allow these stories to become so real and yet equally absurd that you can’t help be dragged into them.

Comedy Choices

The Office is just funny, and whilst comedy is a really difficult thing to put into words The Office is one of those examples that shows you the right way to pull it off. Sure, not everyone will be laughing hysterically at every single joke and some of the scenes might actually make you cringe in awkwardness, but they are like this by design and that is the very novelty of this show.

You would be pretty hard stretched to find a single episode in The Office’s eight year runtime that wouldn’t muster at least a single laugh from even the harshest of critics. The jokes, the timing, the relatability, everything from slapstick to wit The Office throws everything in the book at you dodging cliché’s every step of the way. Given such a versatile set of producers and actors how could it not. There is a very good reason that people around the world, even those who haven’t even watched a single episode of the show, quote Michael Scott on a daily basis.

The 21 Best Michael Scott Quotes - Paste

Not every joke lands but it doesn’t have to, this show is portraying everyday people with everyday lives, the imperfect nature of some of the characters jokes is something that makes sense in the context of their lives.

When a show can run for nine straight seasons and manage to continue on despite losing arguably the most central figure in Steve Carell for the last few you have to accept that there is some serious quality to be found. For that show to then also be founded on comedy you know that it’s something extraordinary and so rarely seen in the modern age of pumping out content for the sake of content.

“If I had a gun with two bullets and I was in a room with Hitler, Bin Laden, and Toby, I would shoot Toby twice.”
Michael Scott

10 things about The Office we bet you didn't know | Entertainment News,The Indian Express

The Office has aged like fine wine and since its finale in 2013 has only grown in popularity in a market that has since failed to produce anything with an experience even in the ballpark that one has when watching this show. It’s the style of the show that really sets it apart from the crowd and in its mockumentary approach to the traditional sitcom genre you are able to find yourself so invested in the lives of these regular office people, seeing more of yourself in them than you might like to admit.

And when all is said and done and you get to the closing minutes of the show you can’t help but look back on it with a certain sadness at the fact that your journey alongside these characters has come to a close but equally so a great warmness in the fact that you took the chance to sit down and appreciate The Office for what it is.

The Benchmark of The Sitcom Genre…

Godzilla vs Kong (2021) Review

Whoever brought this idea to the table deserves a raise because, lets be honest, plotline and creative integrity aside who doesn’t want to see two behemoths go to war. The entertainment factor of this film concept derives almost solely from the sheer amount of chaos and destruction that the producers can possibly shove into it’s two hour span and to be completely honest on that front Godzilla vs Kong actually does pretty well.

Godzilla vs Kong reawakens the franchise and injects some of the Japanese films' spirit, without the substance - ABC News

There really isn’t much context provided regarding the state of affairs leading to the events of the film but in many ways that is absolutely fine, all we need to know is that Kong and Godzilla are existing in the same space and for whatever reason they need to be contained and kept away from each other to avoid all out war. That is until Godzilla starts attacking the humans for no apparent reason and so they decide the weaponize Kong and roll him out in an attempt to stop Godzilla, little to their knowledge it is a group of humans behind the entire thing (surprising right).

There are two main ‘plotlines’ that occur in the film and realistically they are just sidepiece necessities that are just there to somewhat justify the chaos of Godzilla and Kong going at it. Whilst these aren’t terrible the cuts to the Millie Bobby Brown and Julian Dennison plotline most of the time feel somewhat unnecessary and could probably have been compacted down further so that the audience could be back into the main action. That being said it was good to have some sort of character arcs occurring alongside those of Godzilla and Kong’s which helped explain the entire situation as it unfolded, they just at times seemed somewhat unnecessary and a misuse of time.

All of this in mind the casting for the film was well done and though at times Julian Dennison and Shun Oguri felt a little stiff, the rest of the cast and particularly Rebecca Hall and Kaylee Hottle put in notable performances, nothing mind-blowing but certainly good enough for the film.

Now to the main point, the fight scenes in Godzilla vs Kong were quite simply everything that could’ve been asked for and more. The visually were mind blowing and the sheer amount of destruction and chaos was pushed to the absolute maximum for this one, which is the exact thing that makes the film. Realistically nobody was going to this one for the plot, sure it was a nice little added bonus but the make or break was always going to be in the battles themselves and they seemed to succeed on every front nearly every time. Buildings, homes, warships and everything else in the way of Kong and Godzilla fell like they were nothing as the two giants went to war, it removed the need for a fantastic plotline savior and was exactly what you’d expect to see upon seeing the title.

You don’t need to know anything about the backstories of Kong, Godzilla or any of the characters to enjoy this film and that is arguably it’s greatest success. It takes into account the need for a decent plot whilst clearly prioritizing the Godzilla-Kong conflict that the audience is obviously there to see.

The twist at the end of the film was surprising enough to still be called a twist and the ending was (whilst not necessarily the most satisfying) able to put a nice bowtie on the chaos of the previous two hours.

Is this a top quality creative endeavor that pushes the boundaries of film to create something meaningful and lasting? No, but that was never the intention of Godzilla vs Kong and for a film revolving solely around two giant creatures fighting it out it actually handles that side of things considerably well. Jaw-droppingly good effects and visuals make the absolute destruction of Godzilla vs Kong all the more satisfying to watch and with a decent plotline and cast behind it the work certainly has it’s flaws, but generally comes out firing on most fronts.

7.5/10

The Pursuit of Happyness: A Triumph of Human Nature That Lacks The Final Blow…

The Pursuit of Happyness is one of the most quoted films ever made, you see it all the time plastered all over the internet. Chris Gardner standing against the fence telling his son “Don’t ever let someone tell you, you can’t do something. Not even me. You got a dream, you got to protect it. People can’t do something themselves, they want to tell you you can’t do it.“. One of the most recognised and mainstream biopics ever made the film is made so much more powerful by the fact that it is based off the true story of now globally recognised American businessman Christopher Gardner. But that isn’t to say the film doesn’t have it’s ups and downs.

The film follows the story of Chris Gardner whom goes through the ‘stages’ of his life over the course of the entire movie and in many ways this foundation sets a strong pace that leads The Pursuit of Happyness to be neither to fast or two slow and rather somewhere in the middle ground exactly where a piece like this needs to be. The audience experiences the harsh reality of a man whom is so powerfully devoted to himself, his family and to the seeking of ‘Happyness’ but at the same time comes up against the strain of a bad investment made in his naïve youth.

Chris battles a broken relationship, financial instability, homelessness and mental torture all whilst trying to do right by his son. In an attempt to escape the mundane difficulties of staying put Chris puts everything on the line to become a stock broker on Wall Street leading him to lose his relationship, his home and himself for much of the film.

19 Crushingly Beautiful Movie Scenes That'll Make Parents Ugly Cry

The casting work of The Pursuit of Happyness has to be applauded, a young Jaden Smith puts in a top performance as ‘Christopher’ the son of his same named father Will Smith (Who could’ve guessed the family relatives would have great on screen chemistry). This is certainly one of Will Smith’s best and most substantial works and his effort portraying Chris Gardner is not to be understated either. You’ll very quickly take a strong attachment to Chris and his Son which is obviously partly due to the writing but in many ways equally so the top performances in those main roles. Thandie Newton as ‘Linda’ also gives a really emotionally charged performance that adds to volatility of the scenes in which herself and Will Smith interact, particularly as the film progresses.

The character arks and plotline (Although based off a true story) were also extremely well done. No character of importance was left without significant development with some powerful moments packed in between. Although it has to be said that the end of the film whilst putting a nice tie on things felt somewhat rushed and cut short, giving the audience a sense of finality but not so much the satisfaction that the events previous really merited. Chris seems to go through such an immense journey of highs and lows, rushing through the experiences most have in a lifetime in such a short amount of time just to end it all with some fist bumps and the deeming of the final stage of his life as ‘Happiness’. Whilst this does the job it perhaps doesn’t quite hit the mark perfectly.

With that being said The Pursuit of Happyness delves into some pretty intense and profound themes and ideas and does so in a clever, witty and enthralling way throughout most of its journey. Various scenes here and there probably weren’t necessary but the concept of the Rubix Cube (And the scene in the Taxi), the word happiness being spelt ‘Happyness’ on the outside of Chris’ son’s daycare and a lot of the advice that Chris gives to his son being really advice to himself were all catalysts for success in battling the life story of Chris Gardner in a creatively impressive way.

The life lessons were always going to be the focal point of a film like this and what The Pursuit of Happyness does right that so many other films like it don’t is that it does not preach, choosing to show rather than tell and avoiding cliques (not entirely but mostly) to get it’s point across not just about happiness, but really the nature of being human as a whole also.

The Pursuit of Happyness is a powerful and witty biopic that takes the example of Chris Gardner to delve into some of the harshest faucets of life that some may choose to ignore. Excellently casted and written The Pursuit of Happyness rarely gives you reason to take your eyes off the screen, boasting well rounded character arks and impressively compacted messages. An emotional rollercoaster The Pursuit of Happyness falls short in its ending but it’s successes make it nonetheless a fantastic watch.

8/10

10 Batman Quotes You Need In Your Life

The Dark Knight Trilogy is no doubt one of the best ‘superhero’ series out there and unsurprisingly there are some seriously good quotes that you might just take a moment to appreciate if you missed them the first time round. Here’s 10 Batman Quotes You Need In Your Life…

Drive sports cars, date movie stars, buy things that are not for sale… who knows, Master Wayne? You start pretending to have fun, you might even have a little by accident.

-Alfred Pennyworth

Credit: Michael Caine's Blunt, Truthful Take On The Current Oscar Controversy - CINEMABLEND

You’ll hunt me. You’ll condemn me. Set the dogs on me. Because that’s what needs to happen. Because sometimes truth isn’t good enough. Sometimes people deserve more. Sometimes people deserve to have their faith rewarded.

-Batman

I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.

-Batman

A hero can be anyone, even a man doing something as simple and reassuring as putting a coat on a young boy’s shoulders to let him know the world hadn’t ended.

-Batman

You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

-Harvey Dent

Some men aren’t looking for anything logical like money. They can’t be bought, bullied, reasoned or negotiated with.

-Alfred Pennyworth

It’s not who we are underneath, but what we do that defines us.

-Rachel Dawes

Why do we fall? So we can learn to pick ourselves back up.

-Thomas Wayne

You thought we could be decent men in an indecent time! But you were wrong. The world is cruel.

-Two-Face

It is a far, far better thing that I do than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.

-Jim Gordon (Quoting Charles Dickins)

Share your favourite Batman/movie quotes down in the comments below!

Afterlife Season 1: A Ricky Gervais Masterclass A Huge Win For Netflix

Just six 20-30 minute episodes AfterLife is without a doubt a massive win for Netflix on account of a Ricky Gervais masterstroke. Written and produced by Gervais the first season of AfterLife adds to the list of quality Netflix feature series and to some could easily be one of the best to come out of the streaming giant.

Following the story of ‘Tony’, a widower whom has been affected so immensely by grief that it has led him to lose faith in all people, all emotions and really life itself. In a both hilarious but also significantly profound way Tony does and says what he wants whenever he wants because in his mind he could always ‘fall back on suicide’. The concept itself is super super dark and the plotline and characters stand up to the subject matter.

After Life | Ricky Gervais 'in talks' for Christmas special - Radio Times

In essence Gervais is taking you on a journey and exploration into grief with some pretty funny moments thrown in there too, and that’s really the novelty of AfterLife which is able to take a really original type of angle to the concepts of loss, grief and existentialism through a plotline and character ark that will keep eyes glued to screens.

The first season of this show almost feels like one big film and is more of a just under three-hour experience. Gervais is absolutely top notch and given the fact that he both wrote and produced the series you can just see the creative freedom that he had here paying off tenfold. For that you really just have to credit Netflix whom now get to reap the rewards of them actually keeping for the most part out of the production process (which is pretty rare).

As Tony finds himself completely exposed to anything and everything due to his mentality he finds solace in the strangest of places and equally so the strangest of people, but soon enough it’s those very people whom will get him to question whether he truly is now ‘invincible’ but rather ignorant to his true self.

The simplicity of the settings and the small community that takes shape within the life of Tony and within the AfterLife storyline only adds to it’s quality, there’s nothing flashy or any flexing of productive resource muscles nor should there be for something like this and Gervais has put creative integrity, quality writing and even better acting above all else in the production of AfterLife which no doubt is littered with his own essence as a creator.

With AfterLife Intrigue quickly turns to investment and investment rapidly devolves into binge watching episode after episode until you reach the end. We’ve seen the loved one with cancer before, we’ve seen the loss of someone close before and we’ve seen characters in self conflict over and over again yet AfterLife still is impressively able to produce an immensely original type of experience.

There is a lot that Netflix can take from the success of AfterLife, and the first season is Absolutely worth a watch and with the second season out that’s next on the agenda.

8.5/10

2067 Review: A Misfire Frustratingly Full Of Potential

Seth Larney’s climate change sci-fi ‘2067’ is frustratingly mismanaged. With such a clever concept behind it this is one of the misfires in it’s field that is a bit harder to take, playing with time is never an easy endeavor and in all honesty looking upon its stripped back storyline ‘2067’ fiddles with the concept in a way that you just can’t help get pulled in by. Is it enough to turn heads away from some pretty poor performances in the cast and odd creative decisions perhaps not, however the intrigue of the idea itself does have the capability to retain interest.

Larney’s idea of a future not so far down the line is quite clearly a bleak one. With the planet facing collapse and the human race on the brink of extinction all ecological life has been overrun by humans and the Earth’s air becomes subsequently unbreathable as a result of a global disease. This leaves Ethan Whyte, the orphaned son of the scientist whom developed a one way time machine to push 407 years into the future in search of a cure. No doubt about it ‘2067’ is pretty clearly pushing the idea of a race which failed to recognize climate change at the forefront of issues some years prior.

2067' review: A boring, time-traveling climate change film

Let’s start with the casting performances. Though he wasn’t the protagonist Ryan Kwanten as ‘Jude Mathers’ is probably my pick of the bunch and even he didn’t put in a performance to be raved about. Kodi Smit-McPhee puts in a strange up and down type of performance as ‘Ethan Whyte’ in which he had some moments of quality and equally so quite a few moments that mustered a deserved cringe or two. Deborah Mailman was stiff and unnatural in her role as ‘Regina Jackson’ and Aaron Glenane wasn’t terrible but most of the time just added to the awkwardness of the scene, and the rest of the cast were, to put it lightly, pretty poor.

Visually though this film is stunning, something made all the more impressive considering the fact that the piece was filmed entirely out of South Australia. Sci-fi is a genre in which astounding visuals are becoming more commonplace with each addition to the field but there is no doubt about it ‘2067’ looks good. Whether it be the serene green forests of the future or some awesome zoom outs of Ethan standing atop a cliff, for a clearly low-budget Aussie work you have to appreciate the vision and standard of visuals that ‘2067′ has to offer.

The main problem with ‘2067’ is the plot management. The sheer amount of cringeworthy moments in this film don’t help you take it seriously and as the film takes steps to progress it seems to have the idea that the emotional intensity of the plotline does tenfold. This means that there are countless scenes of Ethan crying, breaking down or just outright screaming at nothing out of the blue that seem to make absolutely no sense whatsoever and are pushed in a film no way deserving of them given the events prior to those breakdowns. The inconsistency of emotions and abrasive character decisions come with little to no contextual reasoning and the onslaught of cliques doesn’t do ‘2067′ any favors either.

The actors aren’t great, but as far as the main two go it seems that they put in what they could for a poor writing and directive effort which misuses them in almost every faucet, but the idea is conceptually intriguing enough to retain your attention. ‘2067‘ is one of those movies that you pay attention to just in order to see how the events unfold, even though a fairly lackluster ending awaits.

‘2067’ boasts all the tools for a quality sci-fi film, a quality idea, decent actors in the main roles (though less to be said for the supports) and some stunning visuals to pack a punch, but it still no doubt underperforms. Poor writing and several cringeworthy scenes along with a muddled direction can be attributed as the main catalysts for the lackluster nature of ‘2067’ which whilst very intriguing out of the gate, begins to crumble and fall apart from there.

4/10

The Biggest Box Office Flops Of All Time

What are the biggest box office flops of all time?

Big studios with big budgets pump out movies year after year, but as you’re probably already aware a massive budget does not necessarily correlate to massive success. This idea that money makes movie hasn’t seem to have left Hollywood yet and we’re still seeing big budget blockbusters failing to hit the mark.

But which ones we’re the worst. What movies will go down in history as some of the biggest Box Office flops of all time. Let’s find out…

10. “The 13th Warrior” ($63.3 Million Loss)

Rewatch: The 13th Warrior (1999) | I enthuse

Antonio Banderas starred in this 1999 adaption based off Michael Crichton’s novel ‘Eaters of the Dead’, however with a budget of around 125 Million and a Box Office performance grossing just $61.7 million ‘The 13th Warrior’ fell way short of the mark losing around $63.3 million.

9. “Monster Trucks” ($63.4 Million Loss)

Review: Horses Under the Hood? In 'Monster Trucks,' Try a Cephalopod - The New York Times

I remember seeing the trailer for ‘Monster Trucks’ back in 2016 and thinking ‘Well, that’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a while‘. Turns out I wasn’t the only one with that mindset. The movie is about a monster who lives in a truck, and thus comes about the innovative masterclass that is ‘Monster Truck’, genius right. A budget of $125 million and a box office flop grossing of $61.6 million with the loss accounting to around $63.4 million says otherwise.

8. “The Alamo” – 2004 ($68.1 Million Loss)

Why Did The Alamo Flop? - True West Magazine

Compared to John-Wayne’s 1960 production of ‘The Alamo’ which earned several Academy Awards nominations, the 2004 remake didn’t produce anywhere near as much success or recognition and with a budget of $92 million and a worldwide gross of $23.9 million ‘The Alamo’ suffered a bad loss of around $68.1 million.

7. “The Nutcracker in 3D” ($69.5 Million Loss)

The Nutcracker - Is The Nutcracker on Netflix - FlixList

Absolutely unanimously hated by nearly every single critic whom decided to bless their eyes with ‘The Nutcracker in 3D’ this movie was only held up by some moviegoers giving it a chance. A $90 million budget and a measly $20.5 million box office performance mean ‘The Nutcracker in 3D’ took a massive loss of around $69.5 million and is one of the biggest box office flops seen in recent years.

6. “How Do You Know” ($70.4 Million Loss)

Movie Review: “How Do You Know” - Daily Bruin

Star studded with talent including Paul Rudd, Reese Witherspoon, Jack Nicholson and Owen Wilson ‘How Do You Know’ proved that sometimes big budgets and big names just won’t cut it without a decent plotline. The movie boasted a $120 million budget and only managed to bring in $49.6 million at the global box office making ‘How Do You Know’ a costly $70.4 million flop.

5. “Cutthroat Island” ($73.5 Million Loss)

Cutthroat Island (1995) Movie Summary and Film Synopsis on MHM

The film company behind this 1995 pirate adventure movie actually filed for bankruptcy before it’s release, which was obviously a fantastic sign for ‘Cutthroat Island’ which went on to release to an unsurprisingly terrible box office performance given the massive budget. ‘Cutthroat Island’ lost $73.5 million after a budget of $92 million grossed just $18.5 million at the global box office.

4. ‘The Promise’ ($79.4 Million Loss)

Review: 'The Promise' Finds a Love Triangle in Constantinople - The New York Times

This Indie movie loaded with a big budget and some big names in Oscar Isaac and Christian Bale may actually be considered to be unlucky to be on this list considering the struggle to find a U.S distributor due to geopolitical issues. The Turkish Government also likely had something of an impact on this movie’s release considering it’s controversial subject matter however with a $90 million budget and a worldwide box office performance of only $10.6 million ‘The Promise’ lost $79.4 million and is one of the biggest box office flops in recent history and of all time.

3. ‘The Adventures of Pluto Nash’ ($92.9 Million Loss)

3) The Adventures of Pluto Nash | Box Office: The Top 10 Biggest Money-Losing Movies of All Time | TIME.com

A $100 million budget movie that brought in only $7.1 million in the box office worldwide. Yes you are reading that correctly, ‘The Adventures of Pluto Nash’ lost a grand total of $92.9 million and stands as arguably Eddie Murphy’s worst effort falling easily in the top three biggest box office flops of all time.

2. ‘Town And Country’ ($94.6 Million Loss)

Town & Country (2001): This Notorious Fiasco Lost $90M | Bomb Report

From the outset ‘Town and Country’ was a complete and utter disaster, constant rewrites, retakes and a nearly two-year-long shoot led to a monstrous $100 million budget. There are some films that may have been able to survive such a difficult production process but ‘Town and Country’ failed gloriously in every aspect and was pretty much ignored by just about everybody grossing just $10.4 million for a loss of $94.6 million.

1. ‘Mars Needs Moms’ ($110.5 Million Loss)

The title speaks for itself here, without doubt one of the worst movie concepts man has ever been able to muster and the biggest box office flop by quite some way. Due to the work being produced used what then was ‘cutting edge’ tech ‘Mars Needs Moms’ racked up a budget of $150 million and upon release managed to pull in just $39.5 million for a loss of $110.5 million.

Unanimously unsettling young children around the world ‘Mars Needs Moms’ was impressively terrible clearly did not come across as intended and is probably deservedly at the top of this list as the biggest box office flop ever seen.

TBT: Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

Why not kick off the very first of hopefully many throw back Thursday’s with Guy Richie’s feature directorial debut Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Released back in 1999 just before the turn of the century the film ventures into the underground London crime scene following the story of various crime groups and mobsters all of which quickly become intertwined in each others business to a level that I can only describe as stupidly hilarious.

The plotline centrally follows the story of Bacon (Jason Statham), Tom (Jason Flemyng), Eddy (Nick Moran) and Soap (Dexter Fletcher) and begins when Eddy rings the rest of the group into lending him money to play cards against a notorious mob boss Hatchet Harry (P. H. Moriarty). Little to any of the men’s knowledge Harry has his second hand man watching in on Eddy’s cards from another room on a camera and eventually runs a cocky Eddy down into half a million pounds worth of debt, which is either paid off with cash or their lives.

In their pursuit of making the half a million back Eddy and the boys manage to almost unintentionally involve seemingly every group of mobsters, drug dealers and street criminals in the local area. All of which seem to be ironically either paying back debt or taking revenge on others trying to pay back debt. Making for a pretty funny looped chain of events.

Now that all the background is out of the way let’s get to looking back on the film itself.

The idea/concept of the film is a quality one, and though it isn’t anything most aren’t already somewhat familiar with, is well written. You’ve always got to be careful when you mix an element of comedy with a thematically fairly serious setting but Guy Richie in his debut feature film seemed to balance the two with considerable success. Some moments don’t land as favorably as what may have been intended and various scenes for a while leave you pretty confused as to just what exactly you are watching, but overall Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels delivers in most of it’s key areas.

Once you figure out the main characters and things start to get moving, the ability for this film to invest you into the story and the characters but yet also find yourself cracking up at the onslaught of both jokes and purposely over the top scenes, accents and characters is impressive and always crucial for films like this. Witty and creative in it’s plot choices Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels may not appeal to all, but for those can get past the confusion of being thrown straight into the deep end in the first 10-15 minutes lies an experience worth going back and having.

For a film made just before the turn of 2000, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels visually isn’t anything immensely impressive but stands up to expectation and with some decent camera work and a couple outside-the-box shots matching the mood there really isn’t much to complain about.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is well casted, and most of the main cast puts in quality performances to bolster the quality of the film, and given there are some particularly strange characters in this one there had to be a set of talent capable of taking on the roles, thankfully for the most part this proves to be the case. Does this necessarily mean all the characters are fantastic outside of the actors performing them, no, and there are certainly some odd moments that perhaps could’ve been left out of the final cut.

However, overall the Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels cast proves to be well put together with particularly notable performances from a developing Jason Statham and Nick Moran.

A small budget witty English crime piece, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels burst Guy Richie onto the scene and proved his indisputable gift for intricate yet hilarious storytelling. Everything about this film is over the top, but in that lies it’s very novelty. Energy, action or pace don’t prove a problem for this piece and with a well casted team of actors putting in for a compelling plot you can’t help but look back on Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels as whilst not anything groundbreaking, certainly one of the better works in it’s field and arguably Guy Richie’s finest.
7.5/10

Disney Plus Could Overtake Netflix, Here’s Why…

Disney Plus has absolutely exploded onto the scene and is currently pulling in unprecedented numbers and audiences that services such as Netflix surely must be feeling nervous about.

In November of 2019 Disney Plus amassed 10 Million Subscribers.

It is February of 2021 and Disney Plus has easily pushed past 90 Million Subscribers.

Take that in…

That is around 14 Months ahead of projections and there looks to be absolutely no signs of letting up with millions of new paying subscribers flooding in month after month.

In a little over one year Disney Plus has amassed an unbelievably large audience of over 90 million people, which is nothing short of mind blowing considering the fact that it was in the very same November of 2019 when the service was actually launched.

Lets compare that to Netflix. Founded in 1997 Netflix took SIX YEARS to gain it’s 1 million subscriber milestone in 2003.

Though it is important to understand that Netflix underwent a lot of changes in it’s first few years and was obviously arising in a very different climate.

However that isn’t to understate these numbers from Disney Plus. To push towards half of Netflix’s total subscribers (Around 200 million) in just over a single year is bound to concern the streaming giant.

Now Disney Plus is obviously aiming towards quite a targeted market by making the franchises under Disney’s control exclusive to that service, however with such an explosion into the market it would not be surprising in the slightest to see Disney Plus branching out to license other films from completely separate studios. Which could prove to be a huge threat to the success of Netflix.

And with projections for Disney Plus to reach around 230-240 million paid subscribers by 2023-24 how could you not be speculative as to where that will leave services like Netflix.

But How and Why has Disney Plus exploded in the way it has?

There are plenty of obvious reasons to pin to the massive and immediate success of Disney Plus, in built audience, plenty of funding, competitive pricing the list goes on. But what really seems to have pushed Disney Plus to new heights as a platform is it’s decision to have content that is completely exclusive to its service.

You quite literally are unable to stream those shows, movies and documentaries anywhere other than Disney Plus, and that is where Netflix just can’t compete.

You’ll be able to find heaps of movies on Netflix scattered across the streaming industry from Hulu to Amazon Prime Video to HBO Max to Stan you’ll be able to stream plenty of Netflix’s catalogue across other services.

This doesn’t apply to Disney Plus, you cannot find what is on Disney Plus on any other streaming service and you therefore have no other option other than to subscribe to their service if you wish to stream that content.

And what really packs the killer punch is the fact that Disney has control of some of the biggest franchises on the planet.

-Star Wars

-Marvel

-Pixar

-National Geographic

These are monumentally huge franchises with billions of dollars worth of production value boasting millions of unbelievably dedicated and global fans, all exclusively available to one service and one service only. Disney Plus.

It’s genius.

Netflix has tried to push their own smaller version of this concept with Netflix originals with mixed results, but there is just no way for them to compete competitively with Disney Plus as far as exclusive content goes because that is the very crux of Disney’s platform.

Netflix has variety but Disney has exclusivity. In essence that is where things currently stand and are the central reasons behind each platform’s success.

So hypothetically if Disney Plus was able to grow such a large subscriber base and proceed to branch out by licensing big titles outside of it’s direct umbrella, Netflix may well see detrimental downturns in returning subscribers. Meaning unless they make some serious decisions on how exactly they can add the same amount of incentive we’re currently seeing from Disney Plus.

Disney Plus is the fastest growing streaming service on the planet, and easily the fastest service to put up 90 million subscribers.

Does this mean to say that Netflix is going to crash, crumble, die and fall out of existence, absolutely not. But just you can’t help but be interested to see what Disney Plus does into the coming years with it’s platform and given the numbers the service is putting up (Which are only growing faster and higher) Netflix executives have to be looking at each other with considerable concern.