Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Krypton in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Krypton Is No Kryptonite, Despite No Supes
Shaft is a 2019 action/comedy movie directed by Tim Story and written by Kenya Barris. This film was produced by New Line Cinema and distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. It stars Samuel L. Jackson, Jessie Usher, Regina Hall, Alexandra Shipp, and Richard Roundtree.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
After a failed assassination attempt, Maya Babanikos (Regina Hall), his wife, leaves Shaft (Samuel L. Jackson) and takes their son, John "JJ." Shaft Jr., to raise on her own. 25 years later, Karim (Avan Jogia), a childhood friend of "JJ"'s, dies of a heroin overdose. JJ who is a cyber security expert and FBI Agent concludes he must have been murdered. After being violently ejected by drug dealers when investigating who sold the heroin that killed his friend; he is left with no other recourse but turn to his father, Shaft, for help.
This movie was a lot different from how I remember the last one which came out in 2000. I remember that one being more serious and more thriller, where they were trying to catch the bad guy. This one seemed to make too light of the action but did deliver on the laughs occasionally. Also I don't remember the last film being as "adult" when it came to language or nudity either, but I like how the movie acknowledged the main characters dialogue when his son tries to talk like him. Jessie Usher was very funny as JJ but I personally felt that he was trying to act like Nick Canon, which if that's what they were going for, they could have got him instead. It's an ok movie if your looking for something funny with action and don't care about things like story telling, plot, and the characters walking around with "plot armor". All in all, this movie was good but nothing special, I would just wait for it to go to dollar movies, red box or Netflix instead of wasting money at the movies. Of course if you need your fix of Samuel L. Jackson, then you might want to give this movie a shot. I remember the last one being a lot better. I give this movie a 5/10.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Monster Hunter (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2021
Absolutely Disastrous
Monster Hunter is the 15th feature film directed by Paul WS Anderson and is based on a popular gaming franchise of the same name. This is not Anderson’s first attempt at a video game movie, as he is arguably best known for giving us the Resident Evil movie series and the 1995 version of Mortal Kombat.
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
As is the case with the examples above, this film is in no way faithful to the source material. I am not a huge fan of the Monster Hunter games but I have played enough of them to know that they are nothing like what we get in this generic action movie filled to the brim with clichés. Frankly, this movie runs the gamut of mid 2000’s mediocre action film clichés like it is following a formula from a textbook.
When reviewing any movie, – even one as trashy as this, – I always try to find some positives before tearing through the poor elements, but I am genuinely struggling to find anything here that didn’t annoy me or make me cringe. Even the one thing that you would think would be a positive, – the fact that the movie’s runtime is only 103 minutes long, – still isn’t a positive because the film still manages to feel so long and dragged out.
Anderson is a decent director, I know this from Event Horizon and the first Resident Evil film, but at this point in his career it genuinely seems like he isn’t even trying anymore. I’m honestly convinced at this point that the guy just looks at the box art for whatever video game series he is adapting and decides that is all of the research that he has to do.
The technical aspects of this movie are garbage. The editing is abrupt and extremely cheesy with no flow or cohesion, just a ton of hard crash zooms and awkward transitions. The score sounds like royalty free suspense stock music that a freelancer might download for background music for a low budget Youtube video.
Read the rest of my review at: https://www.bigglasgowcomicpage.com/2021/02/18/review-monster-hunter-movie/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jan 6, 2020
Ritchie back on form
It's about time Guy Ritchie went back to what he does best. After the terrible Aladdin and King Arthur over the past couple of years, and the ok but not great Man from UNCLE and Sherlock Holmes films, Ritchie really needs something good. And whilst for me this didn't quite meet the high expectations set by Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's by far the best thing he's done since 2000's Snatch.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
This is the gangster film reimagined for the 21st century. Weed farms, chavvy kids and even Brexit gets a mention at one point, proving that the gangster flick has definitely been modernised. It's filmed in Ritchie's usual cut away style that works very well and the plot is interesting albeit maybe a tad predictable. The violence does is present although does appear to have been toned down. But the best thing about this is by far the stellar cast. The stars of the show are without doubt Hugh Grant, Charlie Hunham and Colin Farrell. Hunham plays a fairly unassuming and almost lovable and witty gangster, Farrell is the rather funny and Irish coach and Hugh Grant had me gobsmacked by his completely gobsmacked. I barely recognised him with that accent, which is miles away from the Grant we know as the foppish posh gent. These three are also responsible for the funniest moments of the film, either when there's more than one of them on screen together. I must also give a nod to Henry Golding who makes up for his dire performance in Last Christmas.
This film doesn't quite meet Ritchie's high gangster standards though. There are some funny and witty moments, however for me there wasn't enough. Especially not when you compare it with the likes of Snatch. And I think he has really overused the C-word - I'm not bothered by the word itself but there are a lot of other swear words he could've chosen to give it a less repetitive feel. Also the first 20 mins or so dragged a little for me and seemed slow, although I did get into it eventually. My only other gripe would be the opening credit sequence. It's been a while since I've seen a proper opening credits on a film, and this one just seemed ill-fitting with the film itself and the time. Or maybe I just wasn't expecting it.
Overall this is a good attempt at a modern gangster film, definitely enjoyable even if it doesn't quite match up to Ritchie's earlier efforts.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Riddick (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Vin Diesel hits the silver screen in the third installment of the Chronicles of Riddick series. As you would expect, Diesel delivers on a role crafted solely for him.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Pitch Black opened in 2000, heralding a unique story with a compelling main character. Riddick was unique for his planning skills and killer instincts, and he possessed eyes with a “shine job,” which allowed him to see effectively in the dark. He was a convict — a killer — but he possessed enough of a conscience to be endearing and for the audience to identify with him.
In the second film (Chronicles of Riddick), an entirely different storyline unfolded. It showed Riddick as a hero, taking control of the Necromonger horde.
The third and newest film opens to show Riddick broken and stranded on a desolate planet. We watch as he ponders how he got into his current situation. After a brief flashback to the events of the second movie, the film segues into the new story — which feels very reminiscent of the first. This time around, Riddick is up against bounty hunters.
The beginning third of the film pits Riddick against nature itself. Later, the bounty hunters arrive, and the game of cat and mouse goes into overdrive.
I found the transition from the second film to the third adequate, but unsatisfying.
The script, acting, action, and cinematography are all top notch. I was happy with the production value. It didn’t feel cheap or cheesy at all; the effects seemed believable.
I enjoyed the humor. I also appreciated the complexity of the Riddick character, something fans of the series have all come to love.
There were a few plot holes, and a couple of inconsistencies, but overall it’s a great film.
One of the greatest parts of the film is Katee Sackhoff (“Starbuck” of Battlestar Galactica fame), and her bare breast. (I’m a hetero dude — sue me!) The other gratuitous nudity (including one shot of a woman’s shaved groin area) was appropriate and served as great icing on the filmography cake.
My main criticism is that this movie had almost nothing to do with the previous films. There were two great tie-ins, but it never felt like a true continuation of the story line, not in any meaningful way. It was very unsatisfying in that respect However, as a stand-alone action film featuring Riddick, it delivers.
This movie is well worth seeing, but it will dissapoint those looking for strong continuity with the other parts of the franchise.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Kaz (232 KP) rated The Passage in Books
May 15, 2019
A really enjoyable read
Contains spoilers, click to show
I initially read this book in about 2000, so when I decided to re-read it, I couldn't remember much about it. I'm glad I had left it for so long before I read it again, as I was surprised how good this was.
The writing is very good, it reminded me very much of 'The Stand' by Stephen King, because of the dark writing, the way in which it builds up in suspense and also the plot's subject matter. However, I wouldn't say that this was a copy of 'The Stand', it has it's own identity too.
The characters are very believable and complex. I really liked the fact that the characters weren't simply 'Bad' or 'Good'. All of the characters had different sides to them, which made them all the more believable. One criticism I would make, would be that I did find that the more central characters, were better developed than the secondary ones. Actually, in the second section of the novel, I felt that there were too many characters to keep track of. However, as the novel progressed, it became clear which characters I should be paying more attention to.
I was also happy that the 'vampires' were not your stereotypical blood sucking beings allergic to garlic, that could be killed by stakes and crosses. I was also really glad that they were not the romantic, shiny vampires either. I really liked the fact Justin Cronin hadn't written them as just 'bad' either. There was a sensitivity, which made you as a reader, actually feel sorry for these beings.
The pace of the the novel was generally good. I found the first section of the book to be gripping. In fact, I found it very difficult to put the book down. During the second section of the book however, it kind of ground to a halt and I didn't enjoy reading that part as much as the others. However on reflection, I think that the slow build in tension, to the next exciting bit. was very clever. This was because I don't think I would have been able to cope with a fast paced book of 900 plus pages!
Being 900 pages I thought that by the time I got to the end of this book,I would have been desperate to finish and start something new.. However, I was actually sad when I had finished 'The Passage' . Even though this is a long book, I didn't notice how chunky it was and I was able to really get into the world that Justin Cronin had created.
I really liked this book and I'm looking forward to reading the next installment!
My Rating **** 1/2
The writing is very good, it reminded me very much of 'The Stand' by Stephen King, because of the dark writing, the way in which it builds up in suspense and also the plot's subject matter. However, I wouldn't say that this was a copy of 'The Stand', it has it's own identity too.
The characters are very believable and complex. I really liked the fact that the characters weren't simply 'Bad' or 'Good'. All of the characters had different sides to them, which made them all the more believable. One criticism I would make, would be that I did find that the more central characters, were better developed than the secondary ones. Actually, in the second section of the novel, I felt that there were too many characters to keep track of. However, as the novel progressed, it became clear which characters I should be paying more attention to.
I was also happy that the 'vampires' were not your stereotypical blood sucking beings allergic to garlic, that could be killed by stakes and crosses. I was also really glad that they were not the romantic, shiny vampires either. I really liked the fact Justin Cronin hadn't written them as just 'bad' either. There was a sensitivity, which made you as a reader, actually feel sorry for these beings.
The pace of the the novel was generally good. I found the first section of the book to be gripping. In fact, I found it very difficult to put the book down. During the second section of the book however, it kind of ground to a halt and I didn't enjoy reading that part as much as the others. However on reflection, I think that the slow build in tension, to the next exciting bit. was very clever. This was because I don't think I would have been able to cope with a fast paced book of 900 plus pages!
Being 900 pages I thought that by the time I got to the end of this book,I would have been desperate to finish and start something new.. However, I was actually sad when I had finished 'The Passage' . Even though this is a long book, I didn't notice how chunky it was and I was able to really get into the world that Justin Cronin had created.
I really liked this book and I'm looking forward to reading the next installment!
My Rating **** 1/2
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Dancer in the Dark (2000) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Selma is a simple woman leading a simple life. She lives with her only son in a trailer on the property of her friends the nice cop and his wife. She works at a metal factory making sinks and basins. She doesn't make a lot of money, so she holds on to almost every penny she earns for something secret. She can't even buy her son a present for his birthday, so her friends and landlords buy the boy the used bicycle he has been yearning for. Selma also enjoys musicals. She loves them. Especially The Sound of Music, She is actually cast in a local production and gets to play Maria. She can even hear rhythm through the common sounds of life like a train on its tracks or even the sounds of people walking. She creates melodies in her head to distract from the mundane events of life. Sometimes these melodies turn into full production numbers only visible in the confines of her cerebrum.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
Now the problem.
Selma is going blind. She knows she is. She is trying to set her plans and set up her son for a better life than she is able before her illness runs its course. Out of nowhere, tragedy strikes from an unexpected source. She is petrified and acts in haste with dreadful results. Now she must deal with the consequences of her actions and let the pieces fall where they must.
Controversial writer/director Lars von Trier finds an unexpected leading lady in Icelandic alternative pop singer Björk. I guess maybe not so unexpected considering all the singing in the film which she also wrote. I was surprised to read only one of the songs was nominated for Best Song in 2000 and no nomination for her acting prowess. Her emotional turmoil is the spine of the film and her simple, yet powerful demeanor holds the film together through its humorous and tense, gripping melodrama. All Selma wants is to give a good life to her son and is content with a meager existence, which, unfortunately is ripped from her.
The songs are brilliant as most of the them begin with the random noises of life in Selma's brain and become a glorious, choreographed splendor which I found myself really loving. These events make the 2nd half of the film such a tragedy as her spirit is resilient always sees the lighter side of life.
Unlike a lot of Von Trier's other work, no sex scenes and only one scene of violence in the film. The actions of the "normal" people here are the true horror.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
This doesn’t need to be a long review; the film itself doesn’t merit a lot of reflection. But, I have set myself the task of recording every piece of cultural media I consume, and there is already a backlog. So, here come a few quickfire bits on things that I found less than impressive. There is some value in identifying why something failed. Especially, as in the case of Glass, when there was an expectation it might be quite exciting.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
I am not the biggest M. Night Shyamalan fan, to be honest. I will give you The Sixth Sense and Signs (to an extent), but even those contain some dodgy direction, plotting and unforgivable dialogue that hasn’t weathered the test of time well. 75% of his output is so bad it becomes funny; I mean, The Happening and Lady in the Water – WTF!? And the less said about The Last Airbender the better. My favourite of his works would have to be Unbreakable, from 2000. At least there is a satisfying story arc and the “twist” makes sense. Often with him it is so preposterous or an non-event, it makes you wonder why he bothered.
Sixteen years later, and Split sprung a surprise by being not bad at all, largely thanks to James McAvoy’s performance as a man with multiple personality disorder – a striking, terrifying, turn that showcased his abilities as an actor superbly. So there was some anticipation that bringing those two film worlds together would yield something very interesting and at least fun. So, it is sad to say that, once again, he pretty much botched it.
Don’t get me wrong, it is watchable and entertaining, up to a point – that point being when the story tries to gel all its strands together in a cohesive new twist, and fails utterly to do so. McAvoy is yet again the standout. Here he pushes the split personalities at his command to a brain spinning degree, switching from one to the other effortlessly – I would much rather just have watched him talking and twitching for two hours, to be fair. Bruce Willis has little to do but brood, and Samuel L. Jackson becomes totally laughable as he strains with the script to find any grounding in real character, and descends into cartoon / pantomime villain very quickly, losing all validity carried over from Unbreakable.
It’s a shame, because there is an idea in there somewhere; this just wasn’t it. No doubt, he has left it open for further exploration with these characters, and will in time return to them. I just hope he takes his time to consider the script properly before diving headlong into another disappointment of cliche and bad plotting. I just feel sorry for McAvoy, who deserved much better.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Nomadland (2020) in Movies
Mar 2, 2021
Pseudo-Documentary
Frances McDormand is an interesting character actress to watch, one that uses her character actress looks to disguise the fact that she is, in fact, a strong leading actress that draws our attention to her in whatever project she is in. This facet of her on-screen personae is going full throttle in her new film NOMADLAND.
And, thank goodness it is, for without McDormand on the screen, this “slice-of-life” pseudo-documentary disguised as a feature film would be almost unwatchable as McDormand’s character floats through “slice of life” after “slice of life” in what is referred to as the “Nomad Lifestyle”.
Earnestly Directed by Chloe Zao, NOMADLAND tells the tale of Fern (McDormand) who loses her life, her job and her husband during the recession of the late 2000’s and starts to float through life - and experiences - as a “Nomad”, a person with no permanent address who goes from place to place, catching on to the random odd job and living her life in her van.
Zao and McDormand spent years filming in actual Nomad communities with the others in this film often times not realizing that McDormand was an actress playing a part. For McDormand, it had to be the ultimate acting challenge - living in the real world as a character - and she brings a watchable, lost Fern to the screen and she genuinely and earnestly interacts with the real-life characters she encounters. She is very watchable and is a pleasant character to spend the time with.
Most of these real life people she encounters open up about their lifestyle and the movie took on the feel of documentary with Fern as the interviewer/narrator of the story. This made for an intriguing glimpse into a heretofore unknown world (at least to me), but not a compelling film does it make.
Zao does try to drive a narrative as the only other notable actor in this film - David Straitharn - shows up as a fellow Nomad that develops a crush on Fern and is interested in leaving the Nomad life and invites Fern to join him.
This is the only real conflict in this story as we spend an hour-forty-five watching Fern flit from place to place and person to person not really trying to find herself, but letting the wind blow her to wherever the trail takes her next.
An intriguing (enough) slice of life, with a watchable central performance by McDormand, but not substantial enough to engage me as a feature film.
Letter Grade: B (I applaud the attempt)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And, thank goodness it is, for without McDormand on the screen, this “slice-of-life” pseudo-documentary disguised as a feature film would be almost unwatchable as McDormand’s character floats through “slice of life” after “slice of life” in what is referred to as the “Nomad Lifestyle”.
Earnestly Directed by Chloe Zao, NOMADLAND tells the tale of Fern (McDormand) who loses her life, her job and her husband during the recession of the late 2000’s and starts to float through life - and experiences - as a “Nomad”, a person with no permanent address who goes from place to place, catching on to the random odd job and living her life in her van.
Zao and McDormand spent years filming in actual Nomad communities with the others in this film often times not realizing that McDormand was an actress playing a part. For McDormand, it had to be the ultimate acting challenge - living in the real world as a character - and she brings a watchable, lost Fern to the screen and she genuinely and earnestly interacts with the real-life characters she encounters. She is very watchable and is a pleasant character to spend the time with.
Most of these real life people she encounters open up about their lifestyle and the movie took on the feel of documentary with Fern as the interviewer/narrator of the story. This made for an intriguing glimpse into a heretofore unknown world (at least to me), but not a compelling film does it make.
Zao does try to drive a narrative as the only other notable actor in this film - David Straitharn - shows up as a fellow Nomad that develops a crush on Fern and is interested in leaving the Nomad life and invites Fern to join him.
This is the only real conflict in this story as we spend an hour-forty-five watching Fern flit from place to place and person to person not really trying to find herself, but letting the wind blow her to wherever the trail takes her next.
An intriguing (enough) slice of life, with a watchable central performance by McDormand, but not substantial enough to engage me as a feature film.
Letter Grade: B (I applaud the attempt)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2017
A fun, entertaining movie
Anytime I mention to my family that I'm going to see a Tom Cruise movie, they roll their eyes and take the piss. The words 'man crush' are used, and I just take it on the chin (sometimes). The truth is though, many of my favourite movies are Tom Cruise movies. I'm not a fan of his earlier stuff (my wife is the complete opposite), but I pretty much love anything after his Vanilla Sky/Magnolia days. And he's clearly a hell of a nice guy outside of the movies too, despite what anything thinks about his religious beliefs. But then he went and made The Mummy earlier this year - a serious dip in Cruise quality. Can American Made be the movie to get him back on track?
It certainly is an idea role for Cruise. Based on a true story, Cruise plays Barry Seal. Top pilot for TWA and bored of the same old routine day in, day out. When his co-pilot and passengers are all asleep during a flight, he relieves the monotony by faking some heavy turbulence in order to wake them all up, but it's not enough. So, when he's approached by CIA agent Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson) to work for them, flying exciting reconnaissance missions over South America, he jumps at the chance. And then during a refueling stop in Colombia, Seal is recruited by Pablo Escobar's drug cartel, who offer to pay him $2000 for each kilo of cocaine he can carry from Columbia to Louisiana. Then he begins flying guns from Arkansas to Nicaragua while still continuing the drugs runs. Seal finds himself with more money than he can spend, burying bags of it in his backyard and piling it up in wardrobes. He can't turn around without bumping into money, and all the while the stakes are getting higher, the potential consequences of his actions increasing.
Caught up in among all of this are Seals wife and kids. Finding themselves woken by him at 4am and being told they need to move home before their house is raided at 6am, before gradually adjusting to their new, increasingly expensive lifestyle. We never quite get to spend enough time with that part of Barry's life, taking a backseat instead to the roller coaster thrill seeking that he's got himself wrapped up in outside of home.
Cruise charms and grins his way through all of this perfectly. Obviously he did all of the flying scenes himself and he must have had a real blast making this movie. There's a good deal of humour throughout and the use of film grain, handheld cameras and Kodak style lighting help to give it a real 70s-80s feel to match the era it's set in. A fun, entertaining movie and a return to form for Mr Cruise!
It certainly is an idea role for Cruise. Based on a true story, Cruise plays Barry Seal. Top pilot for TWA and bored of the same old routine day in, day out. When his co-pilot and passengers are all asleep during a flight, he relieves the monotony by faking some heavy turbulence in order to wake them all up, but it's not enough. So, when he's approached by CIA agent Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson) to work for them, flying exciting reconnaissance missions over South America, he jumps at the chance. And then during a refueling stop in Colombia, Seal is recruited by Pablo Escobar's drug cartel, who offer to pay him $2000 for each kilo of cocaine he can carry from Columbia to Louisiana. Then he begins flying guns from Arkansas to Nicaragua while still continuing the drugs runs. Seal finds himself with more money than he can spend, burying bags of it in his backyard and piling it up in wardrobes. He can't turn around without bumping into money, and all the while the stakes are getting higher, the potential consequences of his actions increasing.
Caught up in among all of this are Seals wife and kids. Finding themselves woken by him at 4am and being told they need to move home before their house is raided at 6am, before gradually adjusting to their new, increasingly expensive lifestyle. We never quite get to spend enough time with that part of Barry's life, taking a backseat instead to the roller coaster thrill seeking that he's got himself wrapped up in outside of home.
Cruise charms and grins his way through all of this perfectly. Obviously he did all of the flying scenes himself and he must have had a real blast making this movie. There's a good deal of humour throughout and the use of film grain, handheld cameras and Kodak style lighting help to give it a real 70s-80s feel to match the era it's set in. A fun, entertaining movie and a return to form for Mr Cruise!