Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated A Simple Favor (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Confused and dull
Having read other Smashbombers reviews, I did at least go into this film knowing it wasn't an out an out thriller, but that still didn't prepare me for what followed.
This film really can't decide what it is; dark comedy, thriller? It seems to seesaw between the two for the entire 2 hour run time, with very little success in either genre. There are a few funny-ish (I smiled a bit) parts but most of the humour is a little bit cheesy or niche. The thriller side too is very predictable, and most of the twists you can see coming a mile off - this almost feels like a second rate comedy rip off of Gone Girl. And then the final act just goes completely bonkers and ridiculous.
Anna Kendrick plays the same character she always does, and I've finally had enough as shes starting to grate on me. Some of the supporting actors like Andrew Rannells aren't given anywhere near enough screen time (loved him in Girls). The only one to come out of this film unscathed is Blake Lively. She's very charismatic and surprisingly endearing, despite her characters reputation and actions. I have to admit, I have a bit of a girl crush on her - id love to be able to dress like that at work!
For the most part, this film was pretty dull and predictable, and was only entertaining whenever Lively is on screen, which wasn't nearly often enough.
This film really can't decide what it is; dark comedy, thriller? It seems to seesaw between the two for the entire 2 hour run time, with very little success in either genre. There are a few funny-ish (I smiled a bit) parts but most of the humour is a little bit cheesy or niche. The thriller side too is very predictable, and most of the twists you can see coming a mile off - this almost feels like a second rate comedy rip off of Gone Girl. And then the final act just goes completely bonkers and ridiculous.
Anna Kendrick plays the same character she always does, and I've finally had enough as shes starting to grate on me. Some of the supporting actors like Andrew Rannells aren't given anywhere near enough screen time (loved him in Girls). The only one to come out of this film unscathed is Blake Lively. She's very charismatic and surprisingly endearing, despite her characters reputation and actions. I have to admit, I have a bit of a girl crush on her - id love to be able to dress like that at work!
For the most part, this film was pretty dull and predictable, and was only entertaining whenever Lively is on screen, which wasn't nearly often enough.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020
Beautifully made
I've been dying to see this film since it was released, and finally had a free afternoon off today to go and see it, and I am so glad to say it was definitely worth the wait.
The single shot cinematography is possible the most beautiful and impressive bit of filmmaking I've ever seen. Aside from one noticeable cut, it's astounding to see how they've made this in one single shot and in such a smooth and sleek manner. Pairing this with a haunting score and some rather tense and heart wrenching scenes makes for a stunningly made film. Mendes has done a brilliant job.
And then there's the performances. The pairing of Schofield and Blake almost begins very much like a buddy movie, with a few laughs and a lot of heart warming moments, and there are great performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay. MacKay especially is outstanding and is surely one to watch. I also enjoyed the rather brief encounters with the rest of the stellar cast of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott etc and they fit in well with the tone of the film.
My only negative is that there are a couple of what I thought of as silly decisions that seem to pop up in a lot of war films, which is mostly why I've decided to dock this down to a 9 as I groaned a little. But despite this, 1917 is definitely an outstanding film that would be very deserving of any awards it wins.
The single shot cinematography is possible the most beautiful and impressive bit of filmmaking I've ever seen. Aside from one noticeable cut, it's astounding to see how they've made this in one single shot and in such a smooth and sleek manner. Pairing this with a haunting score and some rather tense and heart wrenching scenes makes for a stunningly made film. Mendes has done a brilliant job.
And then there's the performances. The pairing of Schofield and Blake almost begins very much like a buddy movie, with a few laughs and a lot of heart warming moments, and there are great performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay. MacKay especially is outstanding and is surely one to watch. I also enjoyed the rather brief encounters with the rest of the stellar cast of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott etc and they fit in well with the tone of the film.
My only negative is that there are a couple of what I thought of as silly decisions that seem to pop up in a lot of war films, which is mostly why I've decided to dock this down to a 9 as I groaned a little. But despite this, 1917 is definitely an outstanding film that would be very deserving of any awards it wins.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Wishmaster 3: Beyond the Gates of Hell (2001) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020
So, Wishmaster started off well enough but Christ, this series really dived head first into car crash mode.
This third entry into the not so beloved franchise isn't good-bad, or fun-bad - it's actually a festering shit pile masquerading as a straight-to-video B-Movie.
The effects are terrible and cheap, the dlailogue is laughable. The main protagonist is the least likable of the series, which is saying something. Every character in this shitty fiasco is poorly written. The music cues are intrusive and out of place, the editing is completely bizarre (surely a lot of the crew had to be drunk just to get through this)...
I'm not sure what I expected to be honest, but my expectations were absolutely exceeded.
It doesn't even have Andrew Divoff in it, the highlight of the first, and the only good thing about the second Wishmaster. He's replaced by John Novak in Djinn mode (who is fine by the way, the three or so minutes of full make up screentime is just about passable) and by Jason Connery (son of Sean) when he's in human mode. I don't recall seeing Jason Connery in anything else, and I'm sure he's a perfectly fine actor, but in this, he is literally David Brent. Once I noticed this, I couldn't get past it, and any evil he may have been trying to convey was lost in his Brent-ness. Unintentionally hilarious, but didn't make the film any less shit.
Wishmaster 3 is terrible. Don't do it to yourself.
This third entry into the not so beloved franchise isn't good-bad, or fun-bad - it's actually a festering shit pile masquerading as a straight-to-video B-Movie.
The effects are terrible and cheap, the dlailogue is laughable. The main protagonist is the least likable of the series, which is saying something. Every character in this shitty fiasco is poorly written. The music cues are intrusive and out of place, the editing is completely bizarre (surely a lot of the crew had to be drunk just to get through this)...
I'm not sure what I expected to be honest, but my expectations were absolutely exceeded.
It doesn't even have Andrew Divoff in it, the highlight of the first, and the only good thing about the second Wishmaster. He's replaced by John Novak in Djinn mode (who is fine by the way, the three or so minutes of full make up screentime is just about passable) and by Jason Connery (son of Sean) when he's in human mode. I don't recall seeing Jason Connery in anything else, and I'm sure he's a perfectly fine actor, but in this, he is literally David Brent. Once I noticed this, I couldn't get past it, and any evil he may have been trying to convey was lost in his Brent-ness. Unintentionally hilarious, but didn't make the film any less shit.
Wishmaster 3 is terrible. Don't do it to yourself.
Moses Boyd recommended Nefertiti by Miles Davis in Music (curated)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Faction Paradox: The Book of the Enemy in Books
Nov 30, 2020
This is, for all intents and purposes, as close to identifying, or, at the very least, understanding who the Enemy is. The stories that make up the whole of this collection is as follows: Subjective
<b>"Interlock" and "The Annotated Autopsy of Agent A" Simon Bucher-Jones
"Cobweb and Ivory" Nate Bumber
"The Book of the Enemy" Andrew Hickey
T.memeticus: A Morphology" Philip Purser-Hallard
"The Short Briefing Sergeant's Tale" Simon Bucher-Jones
"A Bloody (And Public) Domaine" Jacob Black
"Life-Cycle" Grant Springford
"First Draft" Nick Wallace
"Eyes" Christian Read
"We are the Enemy" Lawrence Burton
"Timeshare" Helen Angove
"A Choice of Houses" Simon Bucher-Jones
"Houses of Cards" Lisa Sarah Good
"The Enemy - The Hole in Everything" Simon Bucher-Jones
"The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy" Jay Eales
"No Enemy But Despair" Simon Bucher-Jones
"The Map and the Spiders" Wilhelm Liebknecht</b>
I quite enjoyed the book as a whole, even though there was some weak pieces that did not really seem to fit, like Helen Angove's "Timeshare". Overall, it was a fitting collection for what it was intended to be. Of particular interest were Simon Bucher-Jones' interconnecting briefs that tie it all together. Quite brilliant, despite some of the weaker stories.
And, yes, as some people have remarked in their reviews, there were some noticeable punctuation and formatting errors. However, the stories are good enough to overlook and not focus on those shortcomings.
Recommended to all fans of Faction Paradox as a whole!!
<b>"Interlock" and "The Annotated Autopsy of Agent A" Simon Bucher-Jones
"Cobweb and Ivory" Nate Bumber
"The Book of the Enemy" Andrew Hickey
T.memeticus: A Morphology" Philip Purser-Hallard
"The Short Briefing Sergeant's Tale" Simon Bucher-Jones
"A Bloody (And Public) Domaine" Jacob Black
"Life-Cycle" Grant Springford
"First Draft" Nick Wallace
"Eyes" Christian Read
"We are the Enemy" Lawrence Burton
"Timeshare" Helen Angove
"A Choice of Houses" Simon Bucher-Jones
"Houses of Cards" Lisa Sarah Good
"The Enemy - The Hole in Everything" Simon Bucher-Jones
"The Enemy of My Enemy Is My Enemy" Jay Eales
"No Enemy But Despair" Simon Bucher-Jones
"The Map and the Spiders" Wilhelm Liebknecht</b>
I quite enjoyed the book as a whole, even though there was some weak pieces that did not really seem to fit, like Helen Angove's "Timeshare". Overall, it was a fitting collection for what it was intended to be. Of particular interest were Simon Bucher-Jones' interconnecting briefs that tie it all together. Quite brilliant, despite some of the weaker stories.
And, yes, as some people have remarked in their reviews, there were some noticeable punctuation and formatting errors. However, the stories are good enough to overlook and not focus on those shortcomings.
Recommended to all fans of Faction Paradox as a whole!!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Marvel touch
The first thing I’m going to tell you about Spider-Man: Homecoming is that it has been gloriously undersold in its uninspiring trailers and promotional posters. In fact, most of the marketing materials shown made it look like this would be Iron Man 4 ft. Peter Parker. Thankfully that’s not the case.
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
The second thing I’ll tell you is that Tom Holland’s turn as Peter Parker is very good indeed. But is he better than Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield? Well, for that you’ll have to read on.
Still buzzing from his experiences with the Avengers in Captain America: Civil War, young Peter Parker (Tom Holland) returns home to live with his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei). Under the watchful eye of Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr), Peter starts to embrace Spider-Man. He also tries to return to his normal life — distracted by thoughts of proving himself to be more than just a bargain basement superhero. However, when danger emerges in the shape of the Vulture (Michael Keaton), Peter must soon put his powers to the test.
Jon Watts directs not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but probably the best film to come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Guardians of the Galaxy. That is by no means and easy thing to achieve, but by golly he’s done it.
The best Marvel films don’t shout about their superhero roots. By that I mean Captain America: the Winter Soldier was first and foremost a heist movie and Guardians of the Galaxy was an epic space opera. Here, Watts and his two writers turn Spider-Man: Homecoming into a cheesy, fun high-school romance and it succeeds at that beautifully.
But is it a good superhero flick? In a word, yes. The action is shot exceptionally well with very little nonsensical shaky cam, the pacing is spot on; in fact it may be one of the best films I have ever seen for pacing and the characters are all utterly believable.
Tom Holland is, without a doubt the best iteration of Peter Parker ever put to the big screen. He is the school geek that the character always should have been. Gone are Tobey Maguire’s ridiculous facial expressions and Andrew Garfield’s unrealistic ‘high school nerd’ persona.
Elsewhere, Michael Keaton avoids the Marvel villain trap and becomes the universe’s best antagonist since Loki. It would be easy for Vulture to come across ridiculous rather than menacing and Keaton gets the latter absolutely spot on. In particular, a pivotal turning point in the film’s third act is exquisitely written and truly intimidating.
It’s not all good news unfortunately. Like a broken record, I have to mention the obligatory CGI-heavy finale. Thankfully though, the story is nicely twisted to give the scenes emotional gravitas. I’m also not sold on Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, but this may come with time. And if I’m really nit-picking, there’s a little too much obvious product placement for Audi.
So, I’ve managed to get through a full review with only a small paragraph of negative points, that doesn’t happen very often. Something else that doesn’t happen very often is for me to award a film a full five stars. On this occasion however, the Marvel touch has well and truly created a corker.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/06/spider-man-homecoming-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Limitless (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After years of hearing women saying this I can now agree that Bradley Cooper does indeed have beautiful eyes. If you don’t believe me go see his new movie Limitless based on the 2001 novel The Dark Fields by Alan Glynn. The movie has so many close-ups of Bradley’s face that you find yourself staring into these blue orbs of beauty, approximately 6 feet across, that utterly mesmerize you and take you to a peaceful place where mice, cats and dogs get along.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
But enough about his incredibly enchanting eyes let’s talk about the movie.
The thriller Limitless is about an unemployed struggling writer Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper) who, after being dumped by his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish), bumps into his ex-brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth). After talking over a few beers, Vernon realizes that Eddie needs help and gives him one pill of a supposedly FDA-approved, soon-to-be-released brain boosting drug called NZT. Eddie is skeptical but upon returning to his apartment building he tries the pill. And. It. Is. Awesome!
The drug allows a person to access every bit of information locked away in their brain. It gets all the neurons in their brain kicked into high gear, allows them to learn anything very quickly, makes a person more focused, perceptive, confident, driven and gives them a boost of energy. So when Eddie takes the NZT pill (close up) he helps his landlord’s attractive wife write her term paper, sleeps with her, cleans his apartment (close up) and writes a good chunk of his book for his publisher (close up). The next morning he is back to his normal self, so he goes to Vernon for more pills, events happen and Eddie ends up with a lot more pills plus a large sum of money.
With the help of NZT he begins to turn his life around. He finishes his book, gets in shape, gets a haircut, still not clean-shaven though (don’t look at the stubble, look at his eyes), learns new things, makes new friends, has lots of nooky (because women dig smart guys), travels and multiple close ups. But soon he realizes that he wants to do something meaningful with his life. As he works to achieve his dream and also get back with his ex-girlfriend, he crosses paths with a mysterious man, Russian mobster Gennady (Andrew Howard), shifty lawyers, police, corporate fat cats like Carl Van Loon (Robert De Niro), gets more random close ups and soon starts running out of pills. Will he do something meaningful with his life? Will he jump off of a building? Can his dreamy eyes get any bluer?
Right from the start the movie grabs your attention by throwing you into the action (and blue eyes) and it gently holds it in a soft blue embrace until the end. The movie has an intelligent and, at the appropriate times, humorous dialogue that flowed very smoothly and naturally. Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper definitely brought their A game (Bradley’s eyes A+) and their on-screen chemistry is one of the best I have seen. Both Abbie Cornish and Andrew Howard were great throughout the film but each of them had their own individual scenes where they really shined. There are some plot holes but they do not detract from this very enjoyable film.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Victor Frankenstein (2015) in Movies
Feb 25, 2018 (Updated Feb 25, 2018)
I, Igor
If you're one of those people who thinks that the story of Frankenstein pays far too much attention to him actually making the monster, and not enough to the details and ups-and-downs of his relationship with Igor the hunchback, then this is the film for you (although if that's your attitude, you really don't deserve Frankenstein movies at all). Deformed circus clown becomes brilliant self-taught surgeon and anatomist, is rescued by unconventional medical student, gets put to work stitching.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
James McAvoy could have been a great Frankenstein, but not with a script like this one - narration keeps banging on about how familiar we all are with this story, before going off into new and wildly eccentric territory - Igor has a romance with a trapeze artist, there are problems with steampunk zombie chimps, etc. Actual creation of famous monster only happens in last ten minutes. Film has zero feeling for historical setting (a version of Victorian London where nobody bats an eyelid if your name is Igor or Frankenstein).
All the major themes of Shelley's story are basically sidelined in favour of overwrought emotional drama. Best thing in it is possibly Andrew Scott as a detective looking to bust Dr F for interfering with zoo animals; his scenes with McAvoy are actually pretty interesting. The kind of film that seems to be afraid the audience will get bored and wander away if there isn't an outbreak of slow-mo or CGI or whatever every five minutes. How does Max Landis manage to keep selling scripts like this one? Moderately good-looking but a massive waste of potential.
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Oct 31, 2018
Great comedy (3 more)
Relatable villain
John Hughes-esque movie disguised as a superhero movie and I dig it
Lots and lots of references
Best spider Man movie
Contains spoilers, click to show
While Tobey maguire will always be my spider man, Tom Holland is the second best (at Least he's better than Andrew Garfield) and Micheal Keaton is an awesome villain. The cast of side characters are hilarious and the jokes are on point. And the two side characters that stand out to me are Ned and Zendaya's character Michelle which later to be revealed that her nickname is MJ (do I smell an upcoming romance that they'll probably explore more in Far From Home?) Also there's no mention of Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy for those who haven't watched this movie and don't care about spoilers are wondering
Also there are tons of references to the spider Man mythology so make sure your following along.
If I had to pick one negative although not a bad thing its just it tries too much to tie in to the MCU although the stuff with reusing elements of the MCU weapons is kinda cool although Luke cage beat them to that plotline and let me make it clear referencing the universe isn't a bad thing because they bring stuff up that'll be important later on in either the upcoming sequels or the next avengers movies but when they do it constantly it just kinda distracts me but if u love the marvel movies like I do then u won't have a problem.
Also there are tons of references to the spider Man mythology so make sure your following along.
If I had to pick one negative although not a bad thing its just it tries too much to tie in to the MCU although the stuff with reusing elements of the MCU weapons is kinda cool although Luke cage beat them to that plotline and let me make it clear referencing the universe isn't a bad thing because they bring stuff up that'll be important later on in either the upcoming sequels or the next avengers movies but when they do it constantly it just kinda distracts me but if u love the marvel movies like I do then u won't have a problem.