darkreignn
Joined May 2012
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
darkreignn's rating
Reviews345
darkreignn's rating
"Love Hurts" had promise. At least, the trailer made it seem so. Advertised as a sort of martial arts action/comedy/romance hybrid - starring everyone's favorite Ke Huy Quan (and not to mention the lovely Ariana DeBose), the film looked to be, at the least, a fun little Valentine's Day adventure with some competent, violent fighting. And with its 83 minute runtime? Gosh, "Love Hurts" has to be nothing but a lean, fast-paced action extravaganza... right? Unfortunately, the answer to that question is: No. "Love Hurts" is a poor film, and it pains me to say that, as I was genuinely looking forward to this. However, within minutes of the movie beginning, I realized that the optimal viewing experience would've been at home rather than on the silver screen.
I don't want to waste time talking about the plot (it's practically non-existent) or the acting (everyone does an okay job with the material they have, but virtually all are hamming it up to an absurd degree); instead, I want to jump right into why you're going to see this movie - the action. Is the action in "Love Hurts" good? On a technical level, yes. The action itself is filmed well, and you can tell that some real care was put into the choreography. Additionally the camera work is quite good, almost never shaky, and likes to follow the action around in smooth takes and wide angles. The martial arts spectacle at play here can be satisfying if you're into that sort of thing, and there's a third-act fight inside of a home that is genuinely exciting.
My issues with the action, however, are twofold. For one, the film just doesn't have enough action in it. For a movie that's only 83 minutes long, there is barely any action at all; you get a little bit in the very beginning of the movie, and then nothing until the final 15 or 20 minutes or so - this was shocking to me, and turned the film into a boring slog where I was sitting there waiting for something - anything - to happen. Secondly, because of the goofy, almost parody-esque tone of the film, the action lacks impact and feels ridiculous. I understand that "Love Hurts" wanted to be a fun, breezy date night kind of movie, but the tone was so light and so silly that the action and the violence felt neutered, even with its at times copious amounts of bloodshed. And so, while I could admire the action from a filmmaking perspective, it never really left any impression on me because the over the top tone of the film kept me from getting invested in the violence.
The best way I can describe how it felt like to watch "Love Hurts" is to say that it's like watching a live-action cartoon. And for some people, that might sound awesome! For me, I would've preferred a bit more of a grounded take that allowed some semblance of seriousness instead of the ridiculous final product. Will you like this? You might find the action enjoyable, but I can't imagine that you'll enjoy how little action there truly is - and how long you have to wait to finally see some.
I don't want to waste time talking about the plot (it's practically non-existent) or the acting (everyone does an okay job with the material they have, but virtually all are hamming it up to an absurd degree); instead, I want to jump right into why you're going to see this movie - the action. Is the action in "Love Hurts" good? On a technical level, yes. The action itself is filmed well, and you can tell that some real care was put into the choreography. Additionally the camera work is quite good, almost never shaky, and likes to follow the action around in smooth takes and wide angles. The martial arts spectacle at play here can be satisfying if you're into that sort of thing, and there's a third-act fight inside of a home that is genuinely exciting.
My issues with the action, however, are twofold. For one, the film just doesn't have enough action in it. For a movie that's only 83 minutes long, there is barely any action at all; you get a little bit in the very beginning of the movie, and then nothing until the final 15 or 20 minutes or so - this was shocking to me, and turned the film into a boring slog where I was sitting there waiting for something - anything - to happen. Secondly, because of the goofy, almost parody-esque tone of the film, the action lacks impact and feels ridiculous. I understand that "Love Hurts" wanted to be a fun, breezy date night kind of movie, but the tone was so light and so silly that the action and the violence felt neutered, even with its at times copious amounts of bloodshed. And so, while I could admire the action from a filmmaking perspective, it never really left any impression on me because the over the top tone of the film kept me from getting invested in the violence.
The best way I can describe how it felt like to watch "Love Hurts" is to say that it's like watching a live-action cartoon. And for some people, that might sound awesome! For me, I would've preferred a bit more of a grounded take that allowed some semblance of seriousness instead of the ridiculous final product. Will you like this? You might find the action enjoyable, but I can't imagine that you'll enjoy how little action there truly is - and how long you have to wait to finally see some.
As a fan of Leigh Whannell's "Insidious: Chapter 3" and "The Invisible Man," I was so looking forward to "Wolf Man," if nothing else but for Whannell's often stylistic direction. His movies have a sort of undeniable visual language that - combined with his tendency to subvert audience expectations through differences in expected story and plot structure - typically make for an entertaining and memorable viewing experience. Unfortunately, that is not the case with "Wolf Man."
Well, I don't mean to come off as overly negative out of the gate, because the truth is that "Wolf Man" does look pretty good. Whannell's signature look and feel is here with a deeply atmospheric setting and visual style that is easy to get lost in; Whannell is good at casting a sense of dread over the world of his film's and the characters that inhabit it, and that's no different in "Wolf Man," which is filled with a number of unique cinematic flourishes. For example, there is an early scene involving a car crash that has truly creative cinematography at play - similarly, whenever the movie allows you to see things from the point of view of the titular Wolf Man, the previously dark and downtrodden scenery looks bright and blue and, honestly, very inviting. So, throughout "Wolf Man's" running time, you can see some true thought put into it. It's just a shame that the rest of the film is so dull.
Listen, as much as I wanted to love this film - and I really did want to and expect to love it - "Wolf Man" is, simply put, a bland movie. This pains me to say, because on one hand I do appreciate what Whannell was trying to do and say here - the themes of generational trauma and attempting to be better people than your parents were are genuinely interesting. I only wish that Whannell did something with those themes that, in execution, feel more like an afterthought than something being fully committed to.
But I digress. You don't care about this film's themes! I mean, the title is "Wolf Man!" You're here to see a werewolf movie! Do you get that? Unfortunately, you don't. What you get instead is a werewolf transformation movie... kind of. You see, instead of showing a bloody, violent, carnage-filled werewolf spectacle, "Wolf Man" decides to focus on body horror, i.e., the horror of turning into a werewolf. On paper, that sounds very unique, but watching it play out on film is a completely different story. Said werewolf transformation is generic to the point where if this movie wasn't titled "Wolf Man" you probably would've even realize what the main character is actually turning into. Additionally, there is little to no werewolf action here, which doesn't sound like it would be a bad thing - after all, a more restrained, character-driven approach could have been, and should have been, refreshing - but "Wolf Man" is so boring that you'll be praying for some type of violence to break up the monotony of what is otherwise a standard body horror flick that you've seen done better a million times before.
"Wolf Man" has glimmers of a great film in it; Whannell's technical skills and creative eye are still present, but these moments of creativity are fleeting. You might find something to enjoy here if you are a huge genre fan, but for myself, once the credits rolled I had one thought in my head: "That's it?"
Well, I don't mean to come off as overly negative out of the gate, because the truth is that "Wolf Man" does look pretty good. Whannell's signature look and feel is here with a deeply atmospheric setting and visual style that is easy to get lost in; Whannell is good at casting a sense of dread over the world of his film's and the characters that inhabit it, and that's no different in "Wolf Man," which is filled with a number of unique cinematic flourishes. For example, there is an early scene involving a car crash that has truly creative cinematography at play - similarly, whenever the movie allows you to see things from the point of view of the titular Wolf Man, the previously dark and downtrodden scenery looks bright and blue and, honestly, very inviting. So, throughout "Wolf Man's" running time, you can see some true thought put into it. It's just a shame that the rest of the film is so dull.
Listen, as much as I wanted to love this film - and I really did want to and expect to love it - "Wolf Man" is, simply put, a bland movie. This pains me to say, because on one hand I do appreciate what Whannell was trying to do and say here - the themes of generational trauma and attempting to be better people than your parents were are genuinely interesting. I only wish that Whannell did something with those themes that, in execution, feel more like an afterthought than something being fully committed to.
But I digress. You don't care about this film's themes! I mean, the title is "Wolf Man!" You're here to see a werewolf movie! Do you get that? Unfortunately, you don't. What you get instead is a werewolf transformation movie... kind of. You see, instead of showing a bloody, violent, carnage-filled werewolf spectacle, "Wolf Man" decides to focus on body horror, i.e., the horror of turning into a werewolf. On paper, that sounds very unique, but watching it play out on film is a completely different story. Said werewolf transformation is generic to the point where if this movie wasn't titled "Wolf Man" you probably would've even realize what the main character is actually turning into. Additionally, there is little to no werewolf action here, which doesn't sound like it would be a bad thing - after all, a more restrained, character-driven approach could have been, and should have been, refreshing - but "Wolf Man" is so boring that you'll be praying for some type of violence to break up the monotony of what is otherwise a standard body horror flick that you've seen done better a million times before.
"Wolf Man" has glimmers of a great film in it; Whannell's technical skills and creative eye are still present, but these moments of creativity are fleeting. You might find something to enjoy here if you are a huge genre fan, but for myself, once the credits rolled I had one thought in my head: "That's it?"