Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021) in Movies
Jan 25, 2022
Good...not Great...kind of like Macbeth
The history of cinema is littered with adaptations of William Shakespeare plays. Some are very successful - Olivier’s HAMLET (1948), Zeffirelli’s ROMEO & JULIET (1968) and, especially, Kenneth Branagh’s HENRY V (1989), my favorite film Shakespeare adaptation. And, of course, some are less than successful, like HAMLET starring Mel Gibson (1990).
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joel Cohen’s adaptation of MACBETH falls somewhere in between, more for the former but veering towards the latter.
Based on my favorite Shakespeare play, THE TRAGEDY OF MACBETH follows the rise and fall of a Scottish Thane who becomes King thanks to the help (and backstage machinations) of his wife…and a murderous deed. This adaptation should really be called “THE BEST OF MACBETH” as it takes a fairly lengthy stage play and compresses it into 1 hour and 47 minutes of Cinema time.
There is plenty here that works, starting with the sense of unreality that Cohen sets this version of this story in. He filmed the entire movie on a soundstage that has a constant haziness to the background, making one think that everything going on is a dream…or maybe a memory…or maybe taking place on some parallel ethereal plane and the black and white cinematography emphasizes this point to a perfect degree.
The performances are stellar - starting with the choice to cast both Macbeth and Lady with older actors. Usually, these 2 are cast as “ambitious up and comers” in their late 20’s/early 30’s, but by using 60-something actors Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand, it makes these 2 characters more desperate for one last chance at the brass ring and makes the choices these 2 make more understandable. Of course, having Denzel and Frances play these 2 certainly helps, as both are superb thespians who are mesmerizing in their speeches (such as Macbeth’s “Is this a dagger I see before me” and Lady Macbeth’s “Out, out damn spot”).
Along for the ride - and performing strongly in this film - is Brendan Gleeson (King Duncan), Corey Hawkins (MacDuff), Bertie Carvel (Banquo) and Harry Melling (yes, Dudley Dursley of Harry Potter fame) as Malcolm. Also…it was fun to see Ralph Ineson (the Captain that pretty much starts the show), Stephen Root (the Porter) and Jefferson Mayes (the Doctor) showing up in brief, one scene cameos along the way.
But, special notice needs to be paid to Kathryn Hunter (the Witches) and Alex Hassell (Ross) who elevate both of these roles to something more than I’ve seen previously. Sure, the Witches…with such speeches as “Bubble, Bubble, Toil and Trouble”…are the “showey” roles in this script, but in the hands of veteran Stage Actor Hunter, it turns into something much, much more. Cohen does more with the Witches than I’ve seen previously done and it works well - quite possibly to the tune of an Academy Award Nomination as Best Supporting Actress for her. Also working well is the use of the character Ross as sort of an “agent” of the Witches. This role, as written by The Bard of Avon, is pretty much a throw away, but Cohen uses it as something more and Hassell delivers the goods in an interesting way.
So, if the acting is good, the setting appropriately mysterious and the Direction generally strong, why did I not connect more with this film? I think it falls to the adaptation of the play by Mr. Cohen. By necessity, he pares down the film and it feels like it just jumps from speech to speech. As I’ve said earlier, each speech is terrific and the performers present these words very, very well, but they didn’t coalesce into anything whole that I could get emotionally attached to. This film is an “abridged” version of the Scottish play and it shows, Cohen opts to keep in the speeches (as is necessary) but that comes at the cost of losing the scenes between characters that would more strongly tie this film apart.
It’s still a worthy entry in the “Shakespeare on Film” canon - and one that is “above average” but falls far short of greatness - kind of like Macbeth himself.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
AmyBee (4 KP) rated We Need to Talk About Kevin in Books
Sep 5, 2018
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ALSO, THIS REVIEW IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO IF PARTS DON'T MAKE SENSE, WORRY NOT, I'LL BE BACK TO FINISH IT LATER!
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Jul 1, 2021
It Doesn't Work
While surfing through my various streaming services looking for something to get swallowed up into my couch while watching, I encountered GREENLAND a film about a “planet killing” comet hurtling towards Earth starring that noted thespian Gerard Butler.
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m kind of like everyone else out there. I grew up with the Ninja Turtles. I loved the cartoons, the comics and most of all the toys. I remember the pizza shooter. Boy, did I get into some trouble with that. When the movie came out in 1990, I begged and begged by father to take me to it until he finally did. I loved that movie! And while it may not for most, it still hold up for me today.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
I wish that I could speak with as much enthusiasm about 2014’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The truth is, as I sat there and watched I found myself shaking my head “no” more often than not over the course of the hour and a half. My worst fears for the movie came true, and I am ashamed of what this may do to the franchise. And be warned, there are most definitely spoilers ahead.
TMNT is about a “gang” called the Foot Clan, who are robbing chemical shipments, banks and all sorts of places in New York City. April O’Neil, a local news reporter, is looking to make a big break and thinks she may have found it as she happens upon a robbery in progress by the Foot Clan. But before she could any good pictures or footage, mysterious vigilantes show up and save the day. This leads her to investigate and find out that none other than our favorite heroes in the half shell are said vigilantes. We find out that the partner of Shredder, the head of the Foot Clan, was running experiments using a chemical compound not of this world. They were injecting, you guessed it, four turtles and a rat. Now the turtles must stop the Foot Clan from carrying out there ultimate plan, which leads us to a final showdown between our heroes and Shredder.
First off, bad move changing the origin story like that. A mutagen made from an alien compound? It totally lacks credibility especially as it is only slight referenced in one scene, and then never spoken of again. Plus, losing “the ooze” origin totally closes doors (though maybe not all the way) on other characters in the TMNT universe (i.e. BeBop and Rocksteady). It’s just really lame to see them veer away from what was tried and true.
The turtles themselves, their new look actually grew on me. I think that some of the accessories may have been a little overboard, but the basics were there. I especially liked that the bandanas weren’t identical. However, the look is where it ended for me. I do not think that they cast the voices right. It just didn’t sound like they are supposed to sound. We’ve had the iconic voices from animated series to the old series of movies that just stand out. I didn’t get that here.
Also, I just don’t get the deal with Megan Fox. I get that some guys find her attractive, but that doesn’t mean she can act. She was the absolute worst choice for April O’Neil. She just didn’t look the part. Maybe Michael Bay was trying to prove a point about the rumors going around for why she wasn’t in Transformers 3. Will Arnett, however, did an excellent job as Vern Fenwick, O’Neil’s camera man. He had some great comedic timing and relief from the action sequences.
If you ask me, they showed Shredder’s face way too early in the movie. And then they way overdid him, right off the get go. Shredder was a formidable foe because of his cunningness and martial arts expertise. But ladies and gentleman, they introduce Super Shredder almost immediately off the bat. Or, as I like to call him in this film, Swiss Army Shredder. He looked like a freaking Transformer, in the worst way. I swear I even heard the Transformer sound when he jumped and landed one time. They way, way over did it. I know, I’ve already said this. But it seems to be a theme of the night.
I walked out of the film wishing I had never agreed to do this. Unfortunately, though, someone’s got to take one for the team. And if it means that I can warn others, than I am glad to have done it. The movie was entirely bad; there were a couple of funny moments. It just saddens me to think that this will be some people’s first exposure to what was always such an awesome universe. I will most definitely not be picking this up on Blu-ray. I will, however, be watching 1990’ Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Now, I understand that some of you may see me as being a fan boy obsessing over nostalgia. But if you have read any of my reviews, you know that I always am kinder and look for the entertainment value of movies. This movie just made me sad. But if you don’t believe me, or doubt my opinion… go check it out. You’ll wish you hadn’t.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek in Books
Jan 21, 2020
Likable characters (1 more)
Great storyline
If your best friend was sent away to a reform school, what would you do? You'd either let them do their 'time,' or you would come up with a plan to help them escape, and with a pinch of the supernatural, this is what 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek' is all about.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
When you read this novel by two of the most well-known YouTube personalities (Rhett and Link of Good Mythical Morning), be sure you have plenty of time to spare because this is a book you won't want to put down. The novel follows three best friends of a small town in North Carolina in the early 1990's, when one of them gets sent to a infamous reform school for an accident, they start to uncover mysterious deaths that have taken place there, and begin to fear that their friend is going to be a victim of one.
In 'The Lost Causes of Bleak Creek,' the main characters, Rex, Leif and Alicia, make their debut at a pig roasting to raise funds for a church, whose copper organ pipes had been stolen days before. It's here we learn that the three are making a film called PolterDog, which leads to Alicia getting sent away after a near-deadly accident with the owner and headmaster of the local Whitewood Reform School.
Soon after, Rex and Leif run into an escapee from the school (Ben), who tells them that their friend's life is in danger while she's at Whitewood. While the three come up with a plan to rescue Alicia, a woman who's visiting the town of Bleak Creek, who is trying to film a documentary about kidney stones, becomes a valuable part of their rescue mission.
Not only do we get to see from Rex and Leif's point of view, but we also get to see from inside the Whitewood Reform School from Alicia's view. This view point is much needed to help readers experience the abuse that goes on inside the school (and to realize that Ben was telling the truth) and also to help readers root for the main characters' success in their rescue mission. Even though the majority of the story is the main characters getting everything together for this mission, the writing was done so well that all of it makes sense leading up to the end.
To not give too much away about this book, I have to cut my review short of it. The writing is really good, with the pace continuously keeping the reader going and wanting more.This story also encompasses everything that makes a great novel: best friends trying to save another, small town mysteries, well-placed humor and murder. I found all of the characters likable, and the situations they found themselves in made complete sense in the story. This will be one that readers can pick up more than once and enjoy it each time they read it. As a horror book, this story is high on my scale with scenarios happening that I couldn't see coming.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The High Lord (Black Magician Trilogy, #3) in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Released in 2003 The High Lord is the penultimate ending to Sonea's story......starting a year after beating a bully in a fight. Sonea has received the respect she deserves but still faces the challenge of her guardian and the High Lord of the guild Akkarin. After being Surprised by Akkarin with a book on Black Magic Sonea is pulled into learning black magic and attempting to protect the city and the country from a group known as the Icani. After going through hell and being thrown out of the guild and being exiled the pair return and aid their fellow magicians in the attack......resulting in may magicians dead including Akkarin and Sonea pregnant with his child.
My opinion of this book was that of a decent conclusion to a good storyline. I do think however that the love storyline between Sonea and Akkarin is a little cliché. Otherwise It was a decent book. I have to admit the fighting between magicians would make a decent movie montage.
Born in Kew, Melbourne Australia on October 23rd 1969 Trudi Canavan spent her formative years being extremely creative in the suburb of Ferntree Gully. Canavan decided to become a professional artist and went to the Melbourne college of Decoration achieving an advanced certificate in promotional display as well as an award for the highest aggregate mark in art subjects in 1988.
During the early 1990's Canavan worked for the Australian magazine Aurealis (a magazine for Australian science-fiction and fantasy work) as well as starting her own business The Telltale art which specialised in graphical design services. By working for Aurealis Canavan was able to write in her spare time.
In 1999 Canavan managed to win the Aurealis award for best fantasy short story with whispers of the mist children and cementing her work further with the release of the Magicians Guild in 2001 (book one of The Black Magician trilogy) the successive books The Novice (2002) and The Black Magician (2003) brought Canavan both widespread acclaim and nominations for both the Aurealis best Fantasy novel and Best Novel Ditmar Category. All three books ended up in the top ten Science Fiction books for Australia.
Canavan's second Trilogy Age of Five was also well received with the first book reaching No3 in the Sunday Times hardback fiction best sellers list and staying in the top ten for six weeks. Canavan went on to write a prequel/sequel to the black magician trilogy known as the magicians apprentice in 2009 this was followed by the traitor spy trilogy which was released between 2010 and 2012. Trudi Canavan now holds a vast array of written works under her belt which can be split into three book series and a group of short stories.
My opinion of Trudi Canavan is that she is a very dedicated writer. Excellent with detail and writing a strong character and story. I definitely respect her work ethic since she is both a writer and a graphic designer. I definitely would love to talk with her and have a discussion about books and writing in general. She is up there with Prof J. R. R. Tolkien, George R. R. Martin and Lewis Carroll in my books.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of Quality reading, I am positive this trilogy could end up being the NEXT it thing if they were ever made into a Movie Trilogy.
My opinion of this book was that of a decent conclusion to a good storyline. I do think however that the love storyline between Sonea and Akkarin is a little cliché. Otherwise It was a decent book. I have to admit the fighting between magicians would make a decent movie montage.
Born in Kew, Melbourne Australia on October 23rd 1969 Trudi Canavan spent her formative years being extremely creative in the suburb of Ferntree Gully. Canavan decided to become a professional artist and went to the Melbourne college of Decoration achieving an advanced certificate in promotional display as well as an award for the highest aggregate mark in art subjects in 1988.
During the early 1990's Canavan worked for the Australian magazine Aurealis (a magazine for Australian science-fiction and fantasy work) as well as starting her own business The Telltale art which specialised in graphical design services. By working for Aurealis Canavan was able to write in her spare time.
In 1999 Canavan managed to win the Aurealis award for best fantasy short story with whispers of the mist children and cementing her work further with the release of the Magicians Guild in 2001 (book one of The Black Magician trilogy) the successive books The Novice (2002) and The Black Magician (2003) brought Canavan both widespread acclaim and nominations for both the Aurealis best Fantasy novel and Best Novel Ditmar Category. All three books ended up in the top ten Science Fiction books for Australia.
Canavan's second Trilogy Age of Five was also well received with the first book reaching No3 in the Sunday Times hardback fiction best sellers list and staying in the top ten for six weeks. Canavan went on to write a prequel/sequel to the black magician trilogy known as the magicians apprentice in 2009 this was followed by the traitor spy trilogy which was released between 2010 and 2012. Trudi Canavan now holds a vast array of written works under her belt which can be split into three book series and a group of short stories.
My opinion of Trudi Canavan is that she is a very dedicated writer. Excellent with detail and writing a strong character and story. I definitely respect her work ethic since she is both a writer and a graphic designer. I definitely would love to talk with her and have a discussion about books and writing in general. She is up there with Prof J. R. R. Tolkien, George R. R. Martin and Lewis Carroll in my books.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of Quality reading, I am positive this trilogy could end up being the NEXT it thing if they were ever made into a Movie Trilogy.
Micro Machines
Games and Stickers
App
The legendary MICRO MACHINES gameplay returns in this all-new multiplayer combat racer from...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)