Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure here: I am a huge fan of the original series of Planet of the Apes movies. I have them on VHS and Laser Disc, having watched them at least a dozen times each. That being said, I didn’t really enjoy 2011’s Rise of the Planet of Apes with James Franco. Not that it was a bad movie, per say, but it didn’t really keep me captivated, so much so that I can barely remember all of the main plot points. At the time I thought that I might be jaded being such a huge fan of the originals. And then I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (we’ll just refer to it as “Dawn” from here on out). I didn’t have very high expectations for Dawn.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack Reacher (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Leaping straight from the pages of author Lee Child’s long-running popular novels and short stories, the tough-as-nails Jack Reacher has arrived on the big screen as the latest starring role franchise for Tom Cruise. Although described by Child as 6’5”, 250 pounds, with blond hair, Cruise does an admirable job of bringing the no-nonsense former military investigator to life.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Green Knight (2020) in Movies
Aug 6, 2021
Interesting...Intriguing...and Weird
You have 2 choices when choosing to view the Arthurian tale THE GREEN KNIGHT.
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
1). Brush up on the 14th Century tale (writer unknown) about Sir Gawain (of Knights of the Round Table fame) and The Green Knight
2). Go in “blind” and let the film wash over you.
I did #2 and while I got the “gist” of what was going on, I missed some of the subtleties (or the attempted subtleties) that I now know since I went on-line and brushed up on the story/poem (no, I did not read the 14th century poem - a google search synopsis of plot of the poem was sufficient).
Starring Dev Patel (more on him later) THE GREEN KNIGHT tells the story of a would-be Knight of the Round Table, Gawain, who accepts a challenge of THE GREEN KNIGHT and now must stand up to the consequence of his deeds while heading off on a quest.
Dev Patel (SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE) has really grown into a fine actor and he is perfectly cast as the courage-challenged Gawain. He walks through this film with a slight look of fear in his eyes and I was finding myself yelling at him (in my head) to “stand up and do what’s right” (which is the point of the film/story) when he would make the wrong decision.
Alicia Vikander (who I have not seen on screen since 2018’s TOMB RAIDER) and Joel Edgerton (LOVING) are 2 of the people that Gawain meets along the way and they bring strength and star power to the middle part of this film - they came along at an opportune time, for this film was beginning to sag under it’s own weight at that point, but these 2 help propel Gawain (and the film) to the climax.
Director David Lowery (A GHOST STORY) has crafted a fantastical film that reminded me very much of the work of Terry Gilliam - and I mean that as a compliment. He heightens every scene with imagery that’s just “off” (again, I mean that as a compliment) that symbolizes the “quest” that Gawain is on.
He also does something that will either encourage or discourage a viewer (and that is the strength and weakness of this film) - he explains nothing.
For example…at the beginning, Gawain is sitting at a round table with a King and Queen and a bunch of other Knights (or would be Knights). One would assume that this is King Arthur, Guinevere and the Knights of the Round Table, but Lowery never calls them by name. “The King” pulls out his sword and hands it to Gawain for his contest with the Green Knight. The crowd reacts with gasps - one would assume that this is the fable sword Excaliber, but it is never stated.
So…knowing these things (and some of the other aspects of the Gawain) story, might further enrich this experience, but Lowery chooses to not spoon feed the audience and since I did not really know the Gawain story, I just sat back and enjoyed the quest, the imagery, the weirdness (and there is some VERY weird moments - I still don’t know what to make of the scene with the Giants) and was rewarded with a film experience that is rare nowadays, one that just unfurls without telescoping what is happening or what is to come.
This film is not for everyone - it does have a rather languid pace to it - but for those of you that can sit in the stillness, marvel at the imagery and revel in the weirdness/unknown, then THE GREEN KNIGHT is, ultimately, a rewarding film experience - one that (now that I know the story) am eager to revisit.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Slide Quest in Tabletop Games
Jun 8, 2021
“Slippery When Wet.” What does that mean to you? What about, “Slippery When Dry, But Also Just Very Slippery Because There’s A Ball-Bearing On The Bottom Of This Little Knighteeple… Kneeple?” That’s more descriptive of what we have here in Slide Quest, and oh boy is it a doozy!
Ok so I originally heard about this game from watching one of Marco Arnaudo’s GENCON videos (he’s amazing btw and you should watch every video) and immediately falling in love with the premise. In this game it is your charge as a player to help the little blue knight guy, I’ll call him Sir Rolli, travel from Point A to Point B. That’s it! That’s all you have to do! However, there are obstacles in your path – fences, rocks, archways, dynamite, and even nefarious foes – foeeples. You do this by pressing down yellow levers that flip up one of the four sides of the game board. This then send Sir Rolli along the opposite direction, and depending on the pressure used, possibly right into a fence, or worse – a hole in the ground!
There are several modes of play and ways you can play. With different numbers of players you will have varied experiences. For instance, the first time I played this was with my son, 3, and my father-in-law, 60+. Now, my son obviously is in it to inadvertently sow mayhem, so my F-I-L and I had to compensate as much as possible. Even then, I loved playing it. The next time I played this was with three other players of adulthood status. Our experience was more focused, and we just tore through the different level with a surprising amount of success. We did not complete all 20 included levels, but we got close! Everyone who played had a great time, and we were all smiles the entire time.
This doesn’t mean that it is a perfect game. Nay. For this game can suffer an extreme quarterbacking issue. You know the type – (s)he who believes they know best in every situation and therefore feels compelled to tell everyone else what to do or how to do it correctly? Yes, even I succumb to this affliction at times, but I believe I have a great handle on it, personally. In any case, quarterbackers can also be shut down very quickly when they neglect to operate their paddle correctly and thus allow the team to suffer a lost health. It can happen, and that’s why I am placing that caveat here and now. Luckily, I have not experienced that in any of our games, so I hope that continues.
Components. I don’t know what happened over at Blue Orange Games over the last several years, but for the company that was known (at least in my world) as the “Spot It” company, and nothing more, they sure have upped their game (har har) significantly. These components are FANTASTIC and they really complement a fun and engaging game experience. Everything has a place, and the quality and art style are just through the roof. To me, well worth the price tag for the components alone.
So all in all, I absolutely adore this one. It is cute, fast, an easy teach, and can be a great equalizer as you can play with an array of different teammates. Josh has waffled on his rating for this one, but we all very much love this little gem. For the reasons mentioned and the fact that Josh added this to his cart and checked out before I was even done setting up the first map, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a slip-slidey 22 / 24. Go get this now!
Ok so I originally heard about this game from watching one of Marco Arnaudo’s GENCON videos (he’s amazing btw and you should watch every video) and immediately falling in love with the premise. In this game it is your charge as a player to help the little blue knight guy, I’ll call him Sir Rolli, travel from Point A to Point B. That’s it! That’s all you have to do! However, there are obstacles in your path – fences, rocks, archways, dynamite, and even nefarious foes – foeeples. You do this by pressing down yellow levers that flip up one of the four sides of the game board. This then send Sir Rolli along the opposite direction, and depending on the pressure used, possibly right into a fence, or worse – a hole in the ground!
There are several modes of play and ways you can play. With different numbers of players you will have varied experiences. For instance, the first time I played this was with my son, 3, and my father-in-law, 60+. Now, my son obviously is in it to inadvertently sow mayhem, so my F-I-L and I had to compensate as much as possible. Even then, I loved playing it. The next time I played this was with three other players of adulthood status. Our experience was more focused, and we just tore through the different level with a surprising amount of success. We did not complete all 20 included levels, but we got close! Everyone who played had a great time, and we were all smiles the entire time.
This doesn’t mean that it is a perfect game. Nay. For this game can suffer an extreme quarterbacking issue. You know the type – (s)he who believes they know best in every situation and therefore feels compelled to tell everyone else what to do or how to do it correctly? Yes, even I succumb to this affliction at times, but I believe I have a great handle on it, personally. In any case, quarterbackers can also be shut down very quickly when they neglect to operate their paddle correctly and thus allow the team to suffer a lost health. It can happen, and that’s why I am placing that caveat here and now. Luckily, I have not experienced that in any of our games, so I hope that continues.
Components. I don’t know what happened over at Blue Orange Games over the last several years, but for the company that was known (at least in my world) as the “Spot It” company, and nothing more, they sure have upped their game (har har) significantly. These components are FANTASTIC and they really complement a fun and engaging game experience. Everything has a place, and the quality and art style are just through the roof. To me, well worth the price tag for the components alone.
So all in all, I absolutely adore this one. It is cute, fast, an easy teach, and can be a great equalizer as you can play with an array of different teammates. Josh has waffled on his rating for this one, but we all very much love this little gem. For the reasons mentioned and the fact that Josh added this to his cart and checked out before I was even done setting up the first map, Purple Phoenix Games give this one a slip-slidey 22 / 24. Go get this now!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Jan 10, 2021
Misses more than it hits
The first Gal Gadot-led WONDER WOMAN film (2017) is generally regarded by most (myself included) as the finest film in the DCEU and Gal Gadot’s portrayal of Diana Prince/Wonder Woman is the highlight of any DCEU film that she appears in, so it was with much (delayed) anticipation that a viewing of WONDER WOMAN 1984 (finally) took place.
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad that the filmmakers couldn’t take the time in the delay of this movie’s release to craft a better film.
WONDER WOMAN 1984 takes the titular character and places this ageless Supehero in the titular timeframe. What Director Patty Jenkins (who so wonderfully brought us the first Wonder Woman film) and the her co-script writer Geoff Johns and all of the others who crafted this film failed to do was to capitalize on their hero and this timeline.
After an opening scene that flashbacks to Diana Prince’s youth on her isolated island of Themyscira (a scene who’s sole purpose, it seems, is to shoehorn favorites Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen from the first film into this one). We then go to a fight in a 1980’s mall (in a clear homage to such fights as the ones in COMMANDO and TRUE LIES - action sequences, that I might add, that were done better by Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron). So back-to-back, this film starts off on unsure footing.
Enter Pedro Pascal’s main villain Maxwell Lord with the ability of a truly wonderful, memorable, villain to elevate the proceedings.
He does not.
Plain and simple, Pascal’s Maxwell Lord just doesn’t work as as a villain. He would have been a nice “secondary villain”.
Which is how I would recommend that Jenkins and Johns approach this character and film, for the secondary villain, Barbara Minerva/Cheetah worked better for me.
As portrayed by Kristen Wiig, we first encounter Minerva as a mousey, insecure co-worker of Diana Prince but slowly - over the course of the film - Minerva becomes stronger and more self-assured and when her transformation into Cheetah is complete, she is a viable opponent for Wonder Woman. And with Gadot’s strong (expected) portrayal of Diana/Wonder Woman the scenes of these 2 playing off each other - both physically and verbally - elevates this film above mediocrity.
As does the chemistry between Gadot and Chris Pine as Steve Trevor (from the first film). This relationship was one of the best parts of the first film, so the filmmakers had to figure out how to bring him back - and how they decided to do it was “fine” (with one issue I have that I can’t reveal but I also think a simple “tweak” in the storyline would have fixed). Because these 2 have such tremendous character - and because Pascal’s villain character is weak - this movie spends way too much time on Diana and Steve and this film loses it’s focus multiple times.
But…a few good action scenes would have saved things - but there aren’t really any. Certainly none that are as visually interesting, and emotionally satisfying, as the “no man’s land” scene in the first film.
This movie is “fine” and with the performances of Gadot, Pine and Wiig, they elevate the needle a little above “fine”. So I will give this movie about a point more than I (probably) should - which puts this film as one of the better films of the DCEU - which says more about the state of the DCEU than it does about this movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2021
A little too slow and self-indulgent for my tastes
There is no denying that Edward Norton is a talented performer. Ever since he burst onto the scene with his Oscar nominated performance in PRIMAL FEAR, he has been a presence both on and off the screen as an Actor, Writer, Producer and Director.
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
With his latest effort, MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN (based on the base selling novel by Jonathan Lethem), Norton puts ALL of his skills to work as he Produced, Directed, Wrote and Starred in this Private Eye thriller from 2019.
If only Norton had handed at least 1 of those jobs over to someone else.
Norton stars as Lionel Essrog, a Private Eye with Tourette’s Syndrome, who’s investigation into the murder of a mentor of his exposes corruption, racism, greed and abuse of power in City Hall in New York City in the 1950’s.
As the star, Norton brings a nice edge to Lionel, who’s Tourette’s causes him to twitch and belt out words randomly, as well as gives him a photographic memory. While the twitching and random swearing are a bit over the top at times, the photographic memory helps Lionel solve the case (of course it does).
And that’s where I have issue with writer Norton - as he cannot resist the urge to showcase Actor Norton’s propensity to go over the top and puts in many, many “Tourette’s moments” as well as putting in long dialogue scenes that tries to show the audience how smart Lionel is.
Unfortunately, Director Norton indulges Writer Norton and Actor Norton so the film has a languid pace that just sits on Lionel’s actions and words. This is a 2 hour movie packed into a 2 1/2 hour run time. Now, to be fair to Director Norton, there are some absolutely gorgeous and interesting pictures put on the screen and the atmosphere (and characters) that are created are interesting (enough) to ALMOST forgive the self-indulgent ways of Writer/Actor/Director Norton.
As for the rest of the cast, Bruce Willis is…Bruce Willis as a Private Eye that works with Lionel and Willem DaFoe is at his “Willem DeFoe-iest” in portraying a critic of New York City Hall with a secret past. It’s as if Director Norton said to both of these 2 fine actors to just “do your thing” while he focused on the myriad of other jobs he had on this film.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Femme Fatale Laura Rose (a part that Norton specifically added to the film - her character was not in the book - and wrote just for her). She is quite good in this role and her scenes with Norton crackle somewhat louder than the rest of the film.
And then there is Alec Baldwin as a corrupt, racist, politician who is looking out for only 1 person - himself. While Baldwin is very good in this 100% serious role, I couldn’t be help but be reminded of a certain comedic character he has played for the past few years on Saturday Night Live.
The music by Daniel Pemberton and the Cinematography by Dick Pope add greatly to the atmosphere of this film - and that is good - for when the story bogs down (and it bogs down A LOT), there usually is something interesting to look at or listen to.
Not a bad film, but it could have been a much better film if someone would have taken at least ONE of the jobs off of Norton (I would vote for Director) and tightened things up and tone down Norton’s tendency to “ham it up” on screen.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Ghost Stories in Tabletop Games
Jul 28, 2020 (Updated Jul 30, 2020)
The Gameplay (4 more)
The Strategy
Replay Value
Thinking Ten Steps Ahead
The Concept
Hard (2 more)
Luck of the dice
The cruse dice
Spooky Scary Ghosts
I learned about this game through Dice Tower reviews, Rahdo runthrough and BoardGameGeek. And it looked really good. A cooperative game in which the players protect the village from incarnations of the lord of hell – Wu-Feng – and his legions of ghosts before they haunt a town and recover the ashes that will allow him to return to life. That sounded really intresting and unquite. So i bought it and its a excellent game. Let me talk more about it..
Gameplay:
Each Player represents a Taoist monk working together with the others to fight off waves of ghosts.
The players, using teamwork, will have to exorcise the ghosts that appear during the course of the game. At the beginning of his turn, a player brings a ghost into play and places it on a free spot, and more than one can come in at the same time. The ghosts all have abilities of their own – some affecting the Taoists and their powers, some causing the active player to roll the curse die for a random effect, and others haunting the villager tiles and blocking that tile's special action. On his turn, a Taoist can move on a tile in order to exorcise adjacent ghosts or to benefit from the villager living on the tile, providing it is not haunted. Each tile of the village allows the players to benefit from a different bonus. With the cemetery, for example, Taoists can bring a dead Taoist back to life, while the herbalist allows to recover spent Tao tokens, etc. It will also be possible to get traps or move ghosts or unhaunt other village tiles.
To exorcise a ghost, the Taoist rolls three Tao dice with different colors: red, blue, green, yellow, black, and white. If the result of the roll matches the color(s) of the ghost or incarnation of Wu-Feng, the exorcism succeeds. The white result is a wild color that can be used as any color. For example, to exorcise a green ghost with 3 resistance, you need to roll three green, three white, or a combination of both. If your die rolls fall short, you can also use Tao tokens that match the color in addition to your roll. You may choose to use these after your roll. Taoists gain these tokens by using certain village tiles or by exorcising certain ghosts. One of the Taoists has a power that allows him to receive such a token once per turn.
To win, the players must defeat the incarnation of Wu-Feng, a boss who arrives at the end of the game. There are also harder difficulty levels that add more incarnations of Wu-Feng, in which to win, you must defeat all of them.
There are many more ways to lose, however. The players lose if three of the village's tiles are haunted, if the draw pile is emptied while the incarnation of Wu-Feng is still in play, or if all the priests are dead.
It is hard game but the strategy to this game is excellent cause you have to think about your moves and what to do next. That and the clock is ticking down to one of the ten Wu-Feng Minions. Also if 3 village spaces get crushed than you lose. Also the luck of the dice and the cards. The strategy is ten fold. Its hard but a excellent game and a must play game. Buy it if you havent already cause its a must. If you want to learn more or see a runthrough of the game go to BoardGameGeek, Rahdo Runthroughs or Dice Tower Reviews.
Gameplay:
Each Player represents a Taoist monk working together with the others to fight off waves of ghosts.
The players, using teamwork, will have to exorcise the ghosts that appear during the course of the game. At the beginning of his turn, a player brings a ghost into play and places it on a free spot, and more than one can come in at the same time. The ghosts all have abilities of their own – some affecting the Taoists and their powers, some causing the active player to roll the curse die for a random effect, and others haunting the villager tiles and blocking that tile's special action. On his turn, a Taoist can move on a tile in order to exorcise adjacent ghosts or to benefit from the villager living on the tile, providing it is not haunted. Each tile of the village allows the players to benefit from a different bonus. With the cemetery, for example, Taoists can bring a dead Taoist back to life, while the herbalist allows to recover spent Tao tokens, etc. It will also be possible to get traps or move ghosts or unhaunt other village tiles.
To exorcise a ghost, the Taoist rolls three Tao dice with different colors: red, blue, green, yellow, black, and white. If the result of the roll matches the color(s) of the ghost or incarnation of Wu-Feng, the exorcism succeeds. The white result is a wild color that can be used as any color. For example, to exorcise a green ghost with 3 resistance, you need to roll three green, three white, or a combination of both. If your die rolls fall short, you can also use Tao tokens that match the color in addition to your roll. You may choose to use these after your roll. Taoists gain these tokens by using certain village tiles or by exorcising certain ghosts. One of the Taoists has a power that allows him to receive such a token once per turn.
To win, the players must defeat the incarnation of Wu-Feng, a boss who arrives at the end of the game. There are also harder difficulty levels that add more incarnations of Wu-Feng, in which to win, you must defeat all of them.
There are many more ways to lose, however. The players lose if three of the village's tiles are haunted, if the draw pile is emptied while the incarnation of Wu-Feng is still in play, or if all the priests are dead.
It is hard game but the strategy to this game is excellent cause you have to think about your moves and what to do next. That and the clock is ticking down to one of the ten Wu-Feng Minions. Also if 3 village spaces get crushed than you lose. Also the luck of the dice and the cards. The strategy is ten fold. Its hard but a excellent game and a must play game. Buy it if you havent already cause its a must. If you want to learn more or see a runthrough of the game go to BoardGameGeek, Rahdo Runthroughs or Dice Tower Reviews.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fantasy Island (2020) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Michael Peña and Maggie Q in a film... I'm in. This was high up my watchlist even though Blumhouse and I don't always see eye to eye.
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html
A group of strangers arrive on an island, this experience will give them their deepest desires. Wish for it and you can live it, all you have to do is see it through to the end on Fantasy Island.
Evidently, Nic Cage turned down the role of Mr Roarke... I didn't know that he turned down any roles so that (if true) should have been a massive warning sign.
I do have to wonder how some of these stories come about. This is based on the 70's TV show of the same name which was entirely not scary as far as I know. Is there a giant bingo cage full of ping pong balls inscribed with names of old shows and films? Do they just let studios try their luck to spin whatever they get to their niche?
Twisting this tale is a pretty good idea, though I'm not really sure why an island would want to do that to people, but what do I know about malevolent black goop spirits? I was generally on board with the storyline and I thought it wove them together quite well but that ending... are you kidding me? There was some speculation thrown out about what was going on and that thread was believable. The one they gave us was laughable, the absolute worst choice. Had they done a small reshuffle they could have given a much less ridiculous conclusion.
There are a lot of different threads and each one has its moments, as daft as they might be they come together quite well even when the filler is poor.
Maggie Q's performance as Gwen felt like the most believable out of the whole ensemble, but that's not really a surprise from her. Gwen is basically the only decent person in the group and throughout her stay she is the one that's grounded and tries to deal with her situation. That should give us something good to work off... but she's kind of bland on screen compared to everything else.
Michael Peña is always a pull to a movie for me, but Roarke's story wasn't all the effective. Had he been a construct of the island then there might have been something in it, but as it was you didn't get any real struggle with his actions, I couldn't see how a character that wasn't portrayed as actively evil could go along with any of it even given his background.
While the rest of the cast is filled with faces you'd know there isn't really a great performance to be seen. From unlikeable characters to a script that's not amusing when it tries to be, what's left of the film is plain in a glossy kind of way, and by that I mean it's got the makings of something good but misses anything that could have made an impact. The effects are fine for the most part and the sets are fine when you take into consideration they're supposed to be a fantasy and don't need to fit together perfectly. The exception is Roarke's door that Maggie Q interacts with, I liked that move and I don't know whether the rest of the film might have benefitted from something similar.
Bits of the film are quite good and could have made for an exciting watch, but that ending was so frustrating that any enjoyment went straight out the window and any thrill from what I'd already seen was gone. Also, considering it is classified as horror there wasn't really enough, or anything of quality, too make that a reality. Untapped potential in abundance here.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/05/fantasy-island-movie-review.html