Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Once Upon A Deadpool (Deadpool 2 PG-13 Version) (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
So you want to see a family friendly version of Deadpool 2? Well you're out of luck because after all their editing it didn't make it past the 12A certificate criteria and had to be released as a 15 again. It still deserved that 15, it wasn't exactly hiding it's sweary side very well, and the violence is still there, you just don't get splattered with as much blood.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
The editing unfortunately leaves you with some obvious continuity errors. The one that bugged me the most was the scene where DP is shot through the hand. They've left out the CGI for the gaping hole but it appears later in the film.
But lets look at the extra content you get.
Fred Savage and DP cut into the film in a homage to The Princess Bride. It's an amusing addition and I really did enjoy the Matt Damon skit.
They also edited the Stan Lee mural to say RIP, it definitely made it stick out more as I completely missed it the first time I saw DP2 at the cinema.
We also got an extra three credit scenes. One before the existing ones and two after. I nearly left... I was convinced that the fourth one was the end and I stood up to leave just as the fifth one started, and someone shouted at me to sit down. I'm not even mad, I was shouting internally at myself too. I was so glad to have seen it. The end Stan Lee montage brought a tear to my eye and was horribly poignant footage.
Is it in any way an improvement on the original? Absolutely not. Was it worth watching at the cinema? Definitely, yes. The screen was packed with people who knew what they were getting and were just there to have fun. (Apart from the two people who left after about ten minutes... spoil-sports.) We laughed together like it was the first time we'd seen the film and it was a great experience. With tickets in our cinema currently £5 of free with your Unlimited card it was well worth seeing on the big screen for the experience.
I'm left actively annoyed now though because it'll probably be another DVD I have to buy. Really there is no way to make Deadpool family friendly without taking everything away that makes him so fun. The ideal scenario would have been to have the Fred Savage bits edited together with the relevant snippets of the film and had it as a 20 minutes extra when they released it to buy. That or create a MST3K style commentary track for the film where you just see DP silently miming actions to Savage while he's telling him the story and we're watching the film, then having DP physically pause the film when Savage asks him questions so that they can do the scenes. Okay, I'm calm again now.
What you should do
I don't know if they're going to release it to buy or stream, and it was a one hit wonder at the cinema so I'm not really sure what you'll be able to do about seeing it. Ultimately though it's probably just worth watching the original again in all it's sweary and bloody glory.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
From this adaptation I think I'd like to have the bleeping buzzer that Deadpool uses in the added scenes. That would really come in handy on a day to day basis.
Smash Up - The Card Game
Games and Entertainment
App
***“It’s a goofy theme with fun art and high replayability, but beneath that veneer of casual...
This War of Mine: The Board Game
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
This War Of Mine: The Board Game is the tabletop adaptation of the award-winning video game that...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Morbius (2022) in Movies
Jul 7, 2022
It's Not Bad...It's Stupid
“It’s not as bad as you heard”, is certainly the very definition of damning something with faint praise, but that is exactly the right thing to say about the 2022 Sony Comic Book Film Adaptation of MORBIUS.
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Starring Jared Leto, MORBIUS follows the origin story - and first adventure - of Spiderman villain Morbius who, inexplicably, becomes the hero in this story.
While, ultimately, not a good film, there are some good things happening here, so let’s begin there.
The lead performance by Jared Leto as Dr. Michael Morbius is - very surprisingly - somewhat grounded in reality. Leto is not one to be subtle in his character choices (see HOUSE OF GUCCI) but in this one, he is (somewhat) reserved. It would have been easy for Leto to go over the top with this character, but he wisely chooses the opposite route…and it works. The always watchable Jared Harris (CHERNOBYL) is on-board in the “mentor” role while Tyrese Gibson and Al Madrigal bring some humor to the proceedings as “Agents” who are chasing after Morbius. The rest of the cast are benign - neither adding nor detracting from the proceedings - with the exception of Matt Smith (LAST NIGHT IN SOHO) who’s character is so badly written that he flounders under the weight of the absurdity of what his character is tasked with.
Trying to overcome the ridiculousness of the story is the Direction by Daniel Espinosa (the Denzel Washington action flick SAFE HOUSE). He moves the action along quickly, never really lingering on the absurdities of the events going on (and there are PLENTY of absurdities to avoid - more on that later) and Espinosa actually has an artistic vision of what he wanted to accomplish visually in this comic-book film, freezing many frames when the picture on the screen looked like a page from a graphic novel. It’s a smart choice for a film that can only be described as dumb.
And dumb this film is. I kept feeling any sense of common sense and reality slip away as this film - written by Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless - quickly devolved into the absurd and ridiculous. One does have to suspend belief when watching Comic Book films (how else are we going to believe that a man can turn into a human spider) but in this case, the suspension is mighty - it is one of the dumbest films ever made (in terms of plot and situations) and that is saying something. The makers of this film really stretch the term “go with me here” as Morbius is constantly chasing and evolving and being chased in the most absurd ways throughout this film with special effects that add to the absurdity of the proceedings. To be fair, this film never falls into the “so bad it’s good” range, it hovers just above that line.
The end credits scenes start to setup a “Sinister Six” Spiderman film, so there is some hope for this - it would be interesting to see Leto’s Morbius team up with some other Spiderman villains (who’s names would be a spoiler), provided the script is better. There’s no way that it can be worse.
MORBIUS is not a bad film - it just will insult your intelligence.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Not a very fun game
The horror film market is huge. Hundreds, if not thousands, of horror films are made every year, with only few standing out of the blood-drenched crowd. Netflix, with a penchant for outstanding horrors and thrillers, decided to hop on the horror flick train, bringing about an adaptation of Stephen King’s terrifying novel ‘Gerald’s Game’.
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
The film follows Jessie (Carla Gugino) and her husband, Gerald (Bruce Greenwood), as they head to a remote lake house in order to spice up their marriage. One thing leads to another, and then Gerald has a heart attack and dies, leaving Jessie handcuffed to the bed with the keys out of reach. She must then fight to survive, whilst having a few disturbing flashbacks and encounters along the way.
This movie is really disturbing. Like, really, really disturbing. It’s not particularly scary, there’s the odd jump-scare or three, but its the imagery and the situation that really get your heart going.
Carla Gugino as the shackled wife is a stand-out in this film. She basically carries it, only with a few interruptions from inside her head, and this makes for very entertaining viewing. She’s amusing, in a way that you didn’t think anyone could be whilst fighting dehydration, a hungry dog at the end of her bed and death himself. In all honesty, it’s not a very fun game.
Her husband, however, is brilliant at being horrible. Greenwood really amps up the bad husband vibes in the 20 minutes he is alive, which then are exacerbated in Jessie’s head after he has died. He’s manipulative, seedy and slimy: something that Jessie realises at the end of the film.
It could be argued that this film isn’t really a horror film in the typical sense. It’s more a horror film about what has happened to Jessie, the main character, and how she comes to terms with her past and survives. She calls on past experiences to escape her confines on the bed, and her horrible history.
That’s not to say that it doesn’t have stereotypical horror movie attributes. The Moonlight Man is their contribution to the supernatural – or more the ‘is he actually there or am I insane?’ kind of gimmick that sometimes comes with this genre. The Moonlight Man is a shadowy figure, lurking in the shadows with his box of trinkets and bones. He’s absolutely terrifying.
He’s also real. In the film and book, he’s a necrophiliac who’s waiting for Jessie to die so he can add her wedding ring and one of her bones to his box. The Moonlight Man is the kind of horror movie villain that you have nightmares about. Which is why he is one of the highlights of Gerald’s Game.
The film isn’t exactly the most complex plot in the world. It plays a bit too much on the stereotypes in some cases and the ending, in true horror film fashion, is too happy, is too well put together after such a traumatic experience. It all ends a bit too neatly after such a messy first three-quarters.
Even though this isn’t the best horror film ever, it certainly is not the worst. It has it’s flaws, but the acting and the scriptwriting make up for the few it has. In an era of horror trying too hard, this film is simple and refreshing, bringing a new feeling to the horror industry as a whole.
So, the moral of the story is: don’t handcuff yourself to the bed because your husband will die on top of you and then a stray dog will eat him and a necrophiliac will come into your house at night. Quite an easy thing to remember, right?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/12/06/geralds-game-review-not-a-very-fun-game/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
“Ha ha ha! What a film, Mark!”
I was first introduced to The Room during a college Film Studies lecture as a perfect example of how not to make a film. Everything about it was atrocious, but I also found it weirdly compelling. Since then, I’ve made a real effort to follow everything relating to Tommy Wiseau and this bizarre film of his. It’s become a cult classic in recent years, drawing a crowd of dedicated fans to the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square for monthly screenings, and Q&A’s with cast members. When I found out that James Franco was creating a film adaptation of Greg Sestero’s novel The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made, I was so excited!
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Inferno is the latest thriller based on the novels of Dan Brown that follow the fictional character of Robert Langdon who is a world renowned symbologist (study of symbols). Like The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons before them, Inferno follows mostly the same story arch and structure.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Slender: The Arrival in Video Games
Jul 4, 2019
An Awful Experience All Around
A brief history for those who are not aware (courtesy of Wikipedia):
“The Slender Man (also known as Slenderman) is a fictional supernatural character that originated as a creepypasta internet meme… Stories of Slender Man commonly feature him stalking, abducting or traumatizing people, particularly children. The Slender Man is no confined to a single narrative, but appears in many works of fiction, typically composed online.”
Slender: The Arrival (which we’ll just refer to as The Arrival moving forward) is the official video game adaptation of Slender Man. Blue Isle studios developed the game to bring us improved visuals, great replay value, and a brand new storyline. These should combine into survival horror at its best. But sadly, it does not. The Arrival encourages exploration and the philosophy of scaring the living daylights out of you. It just doesn’t. Now, truth be told this genre is not typically my bread and butter, but I came into this game with hopeful expectations, but soon found myself wanting more than the game could offer.
First, you are thrown into the game without any instruction or opening. Just head down the road, though. It seems easy enough. I did appreciate the way they worked credits into this opening sequence though, as you are shown the developers and the team that worked on the game. Once you get through this, you come upon a house where you will explore the rooms to find notes scattered throughout the house giving you more information on your back story. Sparing spoilers, essentially the story revolves around a shared trauma from your youth. Once you leave the house, you press on, turning on some generators along your path.
You’ll come across the second house after crossing a river, where I encountered some of the strangeness I assume is part of the experience. Glitching visuals, weird creatures that seemed to disappear when you shine your flashlight upon them, that sort of thing. It could have been a bug, or bugs, but doing a little digging online it seems I was not the only one to experience the same. There wasn’t really any action to be had. A little disheartening.
There’s not much challenge with The Arrival. You will, at some point, encounter the Slender Man in the game. I went straight toward him, and nothing really happened. Unfortunately, it’s a bad byproduct of these games. If it doesn’t scare you, even in the slightest, you’re just left with a stagnant experience while you are running from point to point to read lore.
It took me nearly 2 hours to finish the game, though I suspect those without toddler twins may get through it a bit faster. Suffice it to say, I wish I had those 2 hours back. I never really felt the tension that would cause fear or even nervousness. The shaky cam visual of the game certainly didn’t help. Essentially, you are playing through the eyes of the camera you are holding, complete with “recording” indicator and battery level (you can turn this off). As you walk the camera bobs back and forth a little bit, and as you run it does so a little faster. I understand what they were trying to accomplish here, but it was executed so poorly. I found myself constantly trying to correct this with the joycon thinking it was simply drift. It was super distracting.
Slender: The Arrival failed to give a complete game worthy of the price tag, even at its current price tag of $9.99 on the eShop. That’s not to say you won’t enjoy it, especially if you scare VERY easily or are just a fan of the Slender Man himself. It’s just that combine a wonky control system, very little instruction, and no real tension building moments, and you have a dud of game in my book.
1 out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/06/28/slender-the-arrival-for-nintendo-switch/
“The Slender Man (also known as Slenderman) is a fictional supernatural character that originated as a creepypasta internet meme… Stories of Slender Man commonly feature him stalking, abducting or traumatizing people, particularly children. The Slender Man is no confined to a single narrative, but appears in many works of fiction, typically composed online.”
Slender: The Arrival (which we’ll just refer to as The Arrival moving forward) is the official video game adaptation of Slender Man. Blue Isle studios developed the game to bring us improved visuals, great replay value, and a brand new storyline. These should combine into survival horror at its best. But sadly, it does not. The Arrival encourages exploration and the philosophy of scaring the living daylights out of you. It just doesn’t. Now, truth be told this genre is not typically my bread and butter, but I came into this game with hopeful expectations, but soon found myself wanting more than the game could offer.
First, you are thrown into the game without any instruction or opening. Just head down the road, though. It seems easy enough. I did appreciate the way they worked credits into this opening sequence though, as you are shown the developers and the team that worked on the game. Once you get through this, you come upon a house where you will explore the rooms to find notes scattered throughout the house giving you more information on your back story. Sparing spoilers, essentially the story revolves around a shared trauma from your youth. Once you leave the house, you press on, turning on some generators along your path.
You’ll come across the second house after crossing a river, where I encountered some of the strangeness I assume is part of the experience. Glitching visuals, weird creatures that seemed to disappear when you shine your flashlight upon them, that sort of thing. It could have been a bug, or bugs, but doing a little digging online it seems I was not the only one to experience the same. There wasn’t really any action to be had. A little disheartening.
There’s not much challenge with The Arrival. You will, at some point, encounter the Slender Man in the game. I went straight toward him, and nothing really happened. Unfortunately, it’s a bad byproduct of these games. If it doesn’t scare you, even in the slightest, you’re just left with a stagnant experience while you are running from point to point to read lore.
It took me nearly 2 hours to finish the game, though I suspect those without toddler twins may get through it a bit faster. Suffice it to say, I wish I had those 2 hours back. I never really felt the tension that would cause fear or even nervousness. The shaky cam visual of the game certainly didn’t help. Essentially, you are playing through the eyes of the camera you are holding, complete with “recording” indicator and battery level (you can turn this off). As you walk the camera bobs back and forth a little bit, and as you run it does so a little faster. I understand what they were trying to accomplish here, but it was executed so poorly. I found myself constantly trying to correct this with the joycon thinking it was simply drift. It was super distracting.
Slender: The Arrival failed to give a complete game worthy of the price tag, even at its current price tag of $9.99 on the eShop. That’s not to say you won’t enjoy it, especially if you scare VERY easily or are just a fan of the Slender Man himself. It’s just that combine a wonky control system, very little instruction, and no real tension building moments, and you have a dud of game in my book.
1 out of 5
http://sknr.net/2019/06/28/slender-the-arrival-for-nintendo-switch/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)