Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019 (Updated Oct 29, 2019)
I'll start by saying that Terminator: Dark Fate isn't quite the glorious return to form that a lot of people were hoping it would be. It's not a scratch on the first two, but there's enough good here to provide a mostly enjoyable sequel.
The Terminator series has had a bit of an extended rough patch over the last 15-20 years to say the least. Many fans (including myself) are quite happy to pretend that any entries after T2 just don't exist.
Lucky for us then that Dark Fate feels the same way.
Picking up after the events of T2, with a bit of digital trickery, we're first subjected to a sweet shot of nostalgia that we seem to be getting used to these days.
One thing I found apparent throughout DF, is that it drip feeds nostalgia quite subtly, without ever going overboard.
From there we're introduced to characters old and new including a new Terminator target Dani (Natalia Reyes), her cybernetically augmented human protector-from-the-future, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and the new improved Terminator model for this chapter, the 'Rev-9' (Gabriel Luna).
And then of course Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), back and more badass than ever.
I enjoyed the cast as a whole during DF, but I'll admit that whenever Hamilton was involved in a scene was when my attention was at a peak.
The pacing drags at times - the action scenes are pretty hectic, and mostly entertaining, and a decent script holds the slower moments together for the most part, but i found parts of the middle act a little dull at times.
Arnold Schwarzenegger appears fairly late on, and the film picked up a notch for me at this point. The position we find him in is initially quite jarring, but does (kind of) make sense once explained. It's also Schwarzenegger that provides the bulk of Dark Fate's sparse humour, and it's done very well. Just like the nostalgia aspect, it never quite goes overboard, allowing for some genuinely funny moments in an otherwise serious movie.
The climax of the film is stupidly entertaining, with thrilling action, and some genuinely emotional moments. Dark Fate felt like a 6/10 to me until the last 25 minutes, and it's a strong final sequence that closes the film nicely.
The CGI is mostly decent. Mostly. There are some moments early on that look dodgy AF, and an action set piece on a huge plane a bit later on that is glaringly awful, but it's not enough to tank what is overall, an entertaining action vehicle, with a great cast.
I honestly (and probably naively) hope that the Terminator franchise is left alone now. There's only so many ways one can shoehorn Arnie into a new Terminator narrative, and Dark Fate does just enough to make up for the last three films. And that's good enough for me.
The Terminator series has had a bit of an extended rough patch over the last 15-20 years to say the least. Many fans (including myself) are quite happy to pretend that any entries after T2 just don't exist.
Lucky for us then that Dark Fate feels the same way.
Picking up after the events of T2, with a bit of digital trickery, we're first subjected to a sweet shot of nostalgia that we seem to be getting used to these days.
One thing I found apparent throughout DF, is that it drip feeds nostalgia quite subtly, without ever going overboard.
From there we're introduced to characters old and new including a new Terminator target Dani (Natalia Reyes), her cybernetically augmented human protector-from-the-future, Grace (Mackenzie Davis) and the new improved Terminator model for this chapter, the 'Rev-9' (Gabriel Luna).
And then of course Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton), back and more badass than ever.
I enjoyed the cast as a whole during DF, but I'll admit that whenever Hamilton was involved in a scene was when my attention was at a peak.
The pacing drags at times - the action scenes are pretty hectic, and mostly entertaining, and a decent script holds the slower moments together for the most part, but i found parts of the middle act a little dull at times.
Arnold Schwarzenegger appears fairly late on, and the film picked up a notch for me at this point. The position we find him in is initially quite jarring, but does (kind of) make sense once explained. It's also Schwarzenegger that provides the bulk of Dark Fate's sparse humour, and it's done very well. Just like the nostalgia aspect, it never quite goes overboard, allowing for some genuinely funny moments in an otherwise serious movie.
The climax of the film is stupidly entertaining, with thrilling action, and some genuinely emotional moments. Dark Fate felt like a 6/10 to me until the last 25 minutes, and it's a strong final sequence that closes the film nicely.
The CGI is mostly decent. Mostly. There are some moments early on that look dodgy AF, and an action set piece on a huge plane a bit later on that is glaringly awful, but it's not enough to tank what is overall, an entertaining action vehicle, with a great cast.
I honestly (and probably naively) hope that the Terminator franchise is left alone now. There's only so many ways one can shoehorn Arnie into a new Terminator narrative, and Dark Fate does just enough to make up for the last three films. And that's good enough for me.
Natacha (374 KP) rated The Last Smile in Sunder City -(The Fetch Phillips Archives #1) in Books
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 19, 2020)
More Review Here: https://natachainreviewland.wordpress...
I really, really had a blast reading this story and I flew through it!
Think I liked:
-The Last Smile in Sunder is an urban fantasy with a very noir atmosphere. Luke Arnold writing really immerses you into this world and makes it come to life. As a rule, I don't like lengthy descriptions in my stories, but all descriptions in this book were exactly the right amount and the way they were written grab my interest and didn't let it go.
-I liked the concept of a world where magic disappeared and seeing how that affected all magical beings was something I haven't seen before.
-Fecht personally had some issues but his back story was so interesting. As a was reading about Fetch past I kept thinking that his back story deserved a book on its own. But on the other hand, it was so nicely tied into the main story that by the end I was sold on all those lengthy flashbacks on his past.
-They are so many magical beings, all living in the same world and it was very interesting seeing Arnold's take on them and what back story it gave them.
-Everyone in this story is a grey character. There are not good or bad people/magical beings, it all depends on which version of the story you are listening and we unusually get both sides and I really like that.
-(view spoiler)
Things I didn't like:
-So this one is not something that I didn't like but more like something that some readers might not like. It has some tropes that we've seen a lot. Fecht is your very classic alcoholic and pain killer addict detective that doesn't care about anything and spends his time self pitting because of all the crap he's done in the past and also the love of his life is dead because of him. We've seen that a lot and I can see how other readers might be tired of that trope. Personally, I didn't mind.
-It took me more than 60% to make peace with the fact that the main plot is more like a device for us to get to know the world and Fetch. Yes, everything does come together at the end in a really nice way but at around d 50% of the book I knew almost everything about the world and Fetch's back story but nothing had really happened regarding the investigation. Once I made peace with that fact the slow-moving main stopped bothering me.
-I got an advance copy some maybe it won't be the case with the final version but I wish there was a map to better understand what is going where.
In conclusion, I personally had a really good time reading this story. I will definitely keep an eye on the rest of the series and I've already ordered my physical copy because I need it on my shelf!
I really, really had a blast reading this story and I flew through it!
Think I liked:
-The Last Smile in Sunder is an urban fantasy with a very noir atmosphere. Luke Arnold writing really immerses you into this world and makes it come to life. As a rule, I don't like lengthy descriptions in my stories, but all descriptions in this book were exactly the right amount and the way they were written grab my interest and didn't let it go.
-I liked the concept of a world where magic disappeared and seeing how that affected all magical beings was something I haven't seen before.
-Fecht personally had some issues but his back story was so interesting. As a was reading about Fetch past I kept thinking that his back story deserved a book on its own. But on the other hand, it was so nicely tied into the main story that by the end I was sold on all those lengthy flashbacks on his past.
-They are so many magical beings, all living in the same world and it was very interesting seeing Arnold's take on them and what back story it gave them.
-Everyone in this story is a grey character. There are not good or bad people/magical beings, it all depends on which version of the story you are listening and we unusually get both sides and I really like that.
-(view spoiler)
Things I didn't like:
-So this one is not something that I didn't like but more like something that some readers might not like. It has some tropes that we've seen a lot. Fecht is your very classic alcoholic and pain killer addict detective that doesn't care about anything and spends his time self pitting because of all the crap he's done in the past and also the love of his life is dead because of him. We've seen that a lot and I can see how other readers might be tired of that trope. Personally, I didn't mind.
-It took me more than 60% to make peace with the fact that the main plot is more like a device for us to get to know the world and Fetch. Yes, everything does come together at the end in a really nice way but at around d 50% of the book I knew almost everything about the world and Fetch's back story but nothing had really happened regarding the investigation. Once I made peace with that fact the slow-moving main stopped bothering me.
-I got an advance copy some maybe it won't be the case with the final version but I wish there was a map to better understand what is going where.
In conclusion, I personally had a really good time reading this story. I will definitely keep an eye on the rest of the series and I've already ordered my physical copy because I need it on my shelf!
Flight of the Amazon Queen: 20th Anniversary Edition
Games
App
"A great game, that'll give you hours of fun and leave you feeling good. We love it!" -Mr. Bill's...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Kids of Appetite in Books
Dec 14, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good.</i>
<i>Mosquitoland </i>was the best book I read last year (2015) and I was excited to discover what David Arnold would write next. I approached<i> Kids of Appetite</i> with mild trepidation; what if it did not live up to my expectations? Need not have worried – it was brilliant. Dubbed a “tragicomedy” <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a combination of realistic, heartbreaking experiences with intellectual humour.
The book opens mid interview at a local police station where two teenagers, Vic and Mad, are being questioned about a murder their friend has supposedly committed. From there, the story backtracks a week and proceeds to bring the reader up to date. It all begins with Vic running away from home, distancing himself from his mother and her new partner. By chance, a coincidence – a bump, Vic would say – he is found by Mad who introduces him to a small group of homeless friends. Vic may not have packed in preparation for life on the streets – or in a greenhouse as it turns out – however he did grab the urn containing his late father’s ashes before racing out of the house. Along with the urn is a letter containing cryptic clues that lead to various locations that Vic’s father wished for his ashes to be scattered. He, along with his new found friends; make it a mission to put his father to rest.
It is not possible to label the general theme of the book. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a story full of stories. Each character has their own past, something that led them to the situation they find themselves in now. The group consists of five members – once Vic has been accepted. Baz, at age twenty-seven, is clearly the leader: responsible, caring, and fatherly – until accused of murder. Seven years younger is Zuz, Baz’s mute brother, and finally Coco, an eleven year old with the mouth of a foul old lady. It is Coco, amongst all her swearing and hilarious misuse of words, that coins the name <i>Kids of Appetite, KOA</i> for short, a play on words: they are not solely in want of food, they hunger for life.
Initially it would appear that the main focus will be on Vic: his father’s death, his mother’s new partner, Moebius (facial paralysis) – a syndrome that results in a lot of bullying and discrimination – and, of course, his flight from home. However the remaining members of <i>KOA </i>equally contribute to the overall narrative. Mad, like Vic, knows what it is like to lose a father. Unfortunately she also knows what it is like to lose a mother. Her life since the fateful car crash that left her and orphan has been full of abuse and uncertainty. Baz and Zuz, on the other hand, have escaped a traumatizing childhood in the midst of the Congo Civil War.
Similarly with <i>Mosquitoland</i>, Arnold’s second book is full of intellectual knowledge and humour complete with references to highbrow material. Vic is obsessed with an operatic song and deeply interested in abstract art, particularly Matisse. He pulls the artist’s work apart in search of meaning and relatable truths of life. Like Vic, Mad has a particular song she draws comfort from. The lyrics help her make sense of the world around her, and produce her own manifesto – Madifesto, rather. She is particularly fascinated by S E Hinton’s <i>The Outsiders</i> – a book I have not read, but am obviously going to now. With in-depth theories purloined from her favourite novel, she encourages and advises those around her.
The murder investigation is evidently another key point of the book. I do not want to say too much on the matter as it would not be fair to give the ending away. Be reassured that<i> Kids of Appetite</i> is not a thriller, crime or horror novel; it is the events and dialogue leading up to the conclusion that make up the greatest parts of the story.
It is essentially the characters that make <i>Kids of Appetite</i> such a fantastic work of fiction. Their background stories are all based on real life experiences of many people throughout the world, but it is their opinion of life, their terminology, and their reckless enthusiasm that really impacts the reader. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book to be read over and over again. So many phrases can be lifted and quoted to explain our own lives and feelings. In fact, the entire novel is one big quote to sum up life itself. Although there are so many themes, stories and ideas, there is one clear message. Let go. Let go of the past. Let go of the things that hold you back. For Vic and Mad it is the death of their parents; for Coco it is abandonment; and Baz and Zuz learn to let go of their violent childhood.
David Arnold is an extremely talented author, seamlessly flowing from one notion to another, whilst sweeping the reader into a sea of pure emotion. He may over use the word “ergo” and have an unconventional penchant for ellipses, but that only adds to the uniqueness of the writing. There may be an excessive amount of expletives, however that is overshadowed by the pure genius of the story itself. <i>Kids of Appetite</i> is a book I want to recommend to all. The blurb likens it to authors Rainbow Rowell and Jennifer Niven – I would like to throw John Green into the mix – and should appeal to many Young Adult readers. I could write forever about this book, but I would rather you go and read it yourself. And whilst you read, remember:
<i>They lived and they laughed and they saw that it was good. </i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Sep 26, 2018
Waste of idea, talent and my time
If I was to show future generations a prototypical 1980's "Machismo, Blood and Guts Action Flick", I would pull the original 1987 PREDATOR (starring good ol' Arnold Schwarzenegger) off my dusty shelves and show this to them. It is a film so "of it's time".
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
In subsequent years, there have been more films that attempted to use the Predator character - PREDATOR 2 (1990), AVP: ALIENS VS. PREDATOR (2004), ALIENS VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM (2007) and PREDATORS (2010) - all disappointing. All failing to equal the balance of machismo, action and humor that is needed.
So...it was with great anticipation that I looked forward to THE PREDATOR, a new film written and directed by Shane Black (KISS KISS BANG BANG, IRON MAN 3, THE NICE GUYS) - one of the actors in the 1987 flick!
And...I was disappointed again.
This film fails because it never really got a grip on just what type of film it wanted to be - is it a Sci-Fi film? Is it an Action film? A buddy flick? A gore fest? A look at Autism? Black's script and direction spreads all these items out on the picnic blanket that is this film and then intermittently picks each one of these up to show us - sometimes a couple of them - like a kid trying to decide whether he wants the chips or the hot dogs or the Oreo cookies and just shoves them all in his mouth together.
And that's too bad, for Black has an interesting premise - rival Predators battling on Earth - with a ragtag group of Earthlings thrown in the middle - and what a "ragtag" group they are! Trevante Rhodes (MOONLIGHTING), Thomas Jane (THE MIST), Keegan-Michael Key (KEY & PEELE), Alfie Allen (GAME OF THRONES) and Augusto Aguilera (CHASING LIFE) make an intriguing band of misfit soldiers that easily could have been an equal to Arnold's ragtag group of soldiers from the 1987 original.
Unfortunately, they are the "back-up band" to the boring Boyd Holbrook (NARCOS) and Olivia Munn (X-MEN: APOCALYPSE) as a couple thrown together to defend Holbrook's Autistic son (Jacob Tremblay - so good in ROOM and wasted here) in a by-the-book "they hate each other when they first meet, so - naturally - they'll fall in love by the end" plot contrivance that doesn't work at all.
Add on top of that Sterling K. Brown (THIS IS US) as a "mysterious" Gov't Agent who is so much of a bad guy, all he was missing was a mustache twirl and the missed opportunities of actors such as Yvonne Stahovski (THE HANDMAID'S TALE) and NIall Matter (EUREKA) who both just stand around and do nothing. They even cast Jake Busey (Gary's kid) - who would be the perfect "over-the-top" bad guy for this sort of film, but...he is just misdirection and wasted as well.
What a wasted effort, a wasted opportunity and a waste of my time.
Letter Grade C_+: The ragtag group of soldiers were at least fun to watch (give Thomas Jane and Keegan-Michael Key their own "buddy" picture)!
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the BankofMarquis
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Expendables 3 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Many times when a film series reaches it”s third installment, it is out of ideas and running on fumes. The idea that if a film has spawned a successful sequel it must have a trilogy is nothing new in Hollywood, but far too many times the third films loses momentum and goes through the motions for one last payday for the cast and studio.
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 12, 2022
Less Is More - And It Works!
In 1987, at the height of the ‘80’s action movie craze with the likes of Stallone, Van Damme, Segal, Norris and Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with what on the surface looked like a throw away macho, sci-fi action flick, PREDATOR. What it turned out to be was one of the all-time classic action films.
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kong: Skull Island (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Beauty and the Beast
The fact that Legendary Pictures are busying themselves with an epic Godzilla vs King Kong showdown is one of the worst kept secrets in Hollywood. Naturally, this presented a problem for Peter Jackson’s Kong who simply doesn’t measure up against the giant lizard in 2013’s Godzilla.
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
And in Hollywood, size really does matter; therefore the monstrous ape has been given a monumental upgrade featuring an all-star cast and some serious talent behind the camera. But is Kong: Skull Island as bananas as its trailers would suggest? Or are we looking at something a little more mainstream?
At the climax of the Vietnam War, a team of explorers and mercenaries head to an unchartered island in the South Pacific in an effort to document its inhabitants. Little do they know they are crossing into the domain of vicious man-eating monsters and the legendary Kong.
With a cast that includes Tom Hiddleston, Brie Larson, John Goodman, Samuel L Jackson and John C Reilly, you’d be forgiven for thinking everything is hunky dory over on Skull Island, but this spectacular film isn’t without its flaws. A lack of character development and a severe tonal imbalance mean it’s a beautiful near miss that thankfully manages to pull itself up from a crash landing.
Jordan Vogt-Roberts in his first big budget feature directs a film that is absolutely staggering to watch, with stunning cinematography and exceptionally well-choreographed battles between the gigantic ape and his many adversaries. Giving indie directors the chance to work with big studios to produce blockbusters is something that seems incredibly popular at the moment.
After all, Gareth Edwards took up the challenge of rebooting Godzilla in 2013 with stunning results and Colin Trevorrow was entrusted by Steven Spielberg to rekindle the public’s love affair with Jurassic Park back in 2015 and that worked a treat too.
Here, Vogt-Roberts utilises both of those franchises to great effect, even managing to shoehorn a tasteful reference to Samuel L Jackson’s Jurassic Park character, Ray Arnold. Elsewhere, though, the film falls a little flat. The constant switch in tone from comedy to action leaves a sour taste in the mouth, though John C Reilly’s stranded pilot is a pleasure to watch and lightens up proceedings.
Tom Hiddleston does well in the leading role, though as an SAS operative, he feels a little miscast and Samuel L Jackson’s Preston Packard is immensely dislikeable and his gripe with Kong is forced. It creates a subplot that doesn’t really need to be there.
The special effects, however, are top notch, helped by the splendid cinematography. The gorgeous sunsets and sweeping tropical landscapes have a whiff of Apocalypse Now and the misty terrain brings back memories of Jurassic Park’s first sequel, The Lost World.
Overall, Kong: Skull Island is a stunning film filled to the brim with colour, charming effects and great performances. However, it is a little light on character development and that tone issue is frustrating at times, but as a precursor to a mighty monster battle, it does a fine job in continuing the franchise and setting its future.
Leaving the cinema, though, I was left with a concern for when the two behemoths, Godzilla and Kong, finally meet. Each film has given their respective creature a ‘personality’, and if one of them must inevitably die, who on earth do you choose to perish?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/03/10/beauty-and-the-beast-kong-skull-island-review/
WB
Whisperin' Bill Anderson: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music
Bill Anderson and Peter Cooper
Book
Whisperin' Bill: An Unprecedented Life in Country Music presents a revealing portrait of Bill...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Doom Patrol in TV
Jul 4, 2020
Not Your Average Superhero Show - 7/10
Doom Patrol Is a 2019 action/sci-fi, comedy/drama superhero TV series based on the DC comic created by writers Arnold Drake and Bob Haney and artist Bruno Premiani. It was developed by Jeremy Carver, and produced by DC Entertainment and Warner Bros. Television for DC Universe. Doom Patrol is a spin-off of Titans, a superhero TV series also on DC Universe. Starring Brendan Fraser, Timothy Dalton, Alan Tudyk, Matt Bomer and April Bowlby.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
Doom Patrol picks up after the events of Titans, and finds the titular heroes in the town of Cloverton, Ohio. However they are a long, long way from being anything resembling heroes. The group consisting of Robotman/Clifford "Cliff" Steele (Brendan Fraser), Negative-man/Larry Trainor (Matt Bomer), Elasti-woman/Rita Farr (April Bowlby) and Crazy Jane/Kay (Diane Guerrero) are taken in by Chief/Dr. Niles Caulder (Timothy Dalton).
They each have suffered horrible accidents that have left them scarred or disfigured but also imbued them with superpowers. They have come together in Doom Manor under the guidance of Dr. Caulder to try and overcome their own demons. However when the good Dr. leaves the manor, a quick venture into the town for the team has far-reaching consequences. An enemy called Mr. Nobody (Alan Tudyk) comes to exact revenge and takes the doctor and everyone in the town with him. Luckily they are left with a possible new member and old friend of the doctor, who has come to check on the town and him, Cyborg (Jovian Wade) from Titans.
This show is really weird and definitely not for everyone. I didn't have the opportunity to watch the Titans show before this, so I don't know how much it affects it in anyway or if it's in the same vein. I also never read the Doom Patrol comics. It didn't seem to me like there was a clear plot at first but the writers are definitely going for a unique and captivating way of grabbing the audience. It's also rated TV-MA and it feels like they're kind of going for that Deadpool audience and a dark humor comedy feel. That being said it's not terrible, it really grows on you. To me the first episode was kind of hit or miss but by the second episode it really pulls you in. The characters motivations and backgrounds are very unique and emotionally appealing. The general atmosphere of the show was kind of all over the place; I mean it's a little bit drama, a little bit action, sometimes slightly horror and kind of gory and a superhero element on top of all all of it, plus sci-fi.
There is a pretty exclusively entertaining character, the narrator/villain Mr. nobody who is played by Alan Tudyk. He is very funny and charismatic and isn't afraid to break the fourth wall, right away in the beginning of the first episode. I guess it's a pretty good show but not for everyone, I would give it a 7/10.
