Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Piper (13 KP) rated Strangers: Prey at Night (2018) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Real-feeling Characters (2 more)
Escalating Tension
Some Excellent Scenes
Some Naff Shots (1 more)
Hammy Acting
Contains spoilers, click to show
I’ve heard a lot of trash about this movie, and only some of it is right. Don’t get me wrong - it has its downfalls. We’ll get to those. But it’s a genuinely fun horror movie and, considering the predictability of the slasher genre, it’s fairly terrifying: the suspense doesn’t let up from damn near the beginning. For full disclosure, I haven’t seen the original Strangers movie, and I’ve heard it’s a whole lot better than this 2018 sequel. But the fact that Prey at Night stands successfully alone as a movie means it doesn’t matter which order you watch them in - all I’d say is that it’s probably best not to pay much attention to the reviews on this one (as sefl-destructive as a comment like that might be). It’s impressive in its own right, and if this apparently-subpar sequel is anything to go by, the original must be worthwhile. I’ll let you know once I’ve actually seen it.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Now, onto the juicy stuff. There really isn’t a whole lot of bad to this movie, and what there is is fairly standard for modern horror movies. The plot is fairly predictable: people with knives hunt down people without (the good guys do have a single gun between them, and in a display that makes you genuinely shout at your television it never gets used); a dysfunctional American family gets torn completely apart; every single time you think the evil nasty villain man is dead, he stands up, just a little out of our good guy’s eyeline. It’s fairly repetitive - how much story can you get out of some knives and masks and a little bit of running? - and while it nicely strays from the standard twisty ending, there’s a hint of danger at the end that a) doesn’t make sense, b) doesn’t mean anything, and c) isn’t explored or explained so falls very short of what it’s trying to do. And that’s nearly all the bad out of the way, but I’d like to give an honourable mention to some very corny Raimi-esque camera zooms that, momentarily, take the viewer completely out of the film and just look terrible.
Having said that, most of the camerawork is good - shaky where it needs to be, dead straight when it works. There are some claustrophobic close-ups that leave you wondering just what the director’s hiding out of frame. And while watching a creepily-masked figure loom silently into frame can get a little less scary every time, it’s certainly well-shot. Despite the pitfalls, most of which are just so easy to slip into, the good parts to this movie mostly fall into the categories of character work and nice, understated gore. The bloody parts are suitably bloody, but they don’t become unrealistic. In fact, there are gory moments that seem meticulously well-crafted and you can almost feel the pain. The characters are annoying at times, they all have their own quirks and tightly-wound baggage, and there are places where their obviously set-up arcs just don’t get the resolution they need - hang on, why do I think this is a good film?
Here’s why. Because it’s real. People don’t always get resolution (okay, it isn’t always because one of the conflicting characters dies about five minutes into the experience, but we don’t always get closure, we don’t always get to fix relationships before it’s too late). The characters in this film are, despite everything, quite likeable once you get to know them, and there’s a truly heartbreaking moment fairly early on that can’t be shunned. The injuries these characters sustain throughout don’t just go away - they stick around, for the most part, slow them down, make them vulnerable. The setting is unassuming until you realise this family are literally the only characters in the film that aren’t dead (and quite beautifully mutilated) or wielding a knife/axe/pickup truck - and if you dare make the connection between a spooky trailer park and a certain Camp Crystal Lake, it makes sense. The slashers themselves are fairly unoriginal (I’m really trying not to stray into the negatives again) but they’re human. They can die. Their motives are revealed in a simple, nicely-put “Why not?” and it’s clear they don’t need a reason, this is just fun for them. The masks, obviously, add a little layer of creep, and there’s a swimming pool scene that really is quite beautifully done. Watching people get murdered to a corny, cheerful eighties soundtrack might get irritating, if it wasn’t established that that’s just a chilling preference of the primary slasher character. The popping-up-out-of-nowhere gimmick might get a little annoying if it wasn’t established that really, this is just that kind of movie. The fact that we never find out what Kenzie did to get her shipped off to boarding school, or who Tamara was (should I have seen the first movie? I’ll have to watch it soon or I just might be lambasted for my ignorance) didn't put us too out-of-place, because there are enough wonderful gore and inventive set-piece-driven slasher moments to remind you that, hang on, you don't really need to know. The tension builds, and it builds, and oh it keeps on building right until the end, and it’s the one thing about this film that's masterfully done.
At the end of the day, this isn’t a great movie. It’s certainly not perfect. But it’s good. It feels real, and it feels, in places, genuinely terrifying. It’s a fun watch and it hasn’t been ridiculously drawn-out like some recent films (I’m looking at you, Chapter Two) so it’s quick, it’s choppy, and there’s a half-decent scare every now and then. Will it scar you for life? Depends how you feel about Kim Wilde.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 7500 (2019) in Movies
Jun 28, 2020
A 'small film' that packs a big punch
I'm not sure if there is an "IQ" table of Hollywood stars, but I would reckon if there is then Joseph Gordon-Levitt would rate pretty highly. Whenever I see him interviewed he comes across as a highly articulate and intelligent bloke. And that intelligence filters through into his choices of movie role. If you look back at his filmography on IMDB the first thing you notice is that his output is pretty sparse and selective, and the next is that the projects he's done mostly deliver a pretty strong hit rate: "500 Days of Summer"; "Inception", "Looper", "The Dark Knight Rises"; "Don Jon".... the list is impressive.
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Here he stars (and really stars) in a small German film. It only had a $5 million budget and in some ways it shows: the speaking cast totals about a dozen; the single location used is the cockpit (an Airbus A320 simulator somewhere? Or a set? The production design is so good, it's difficult to tell) ; and the "score" is so minimalistic (a solo piano piece over the end titles) that it doesn't even merit an IMDB music credit!
But in many ways this is a case of 'small is beautiful'. For this is an extremely tense and claustrophobic action picture.
The Plot: German Captain Michael Lutzmann (Carlo Kitzlinger) and American Co-pilot Tobias Ellis (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) are about to pilot an Airbus A320 on a routine flight from Berlin to Paris. By coincidence, also on the flight is Tobias's partner and mother of his son, stewardess Gökce (Aylin Tezel). Shortly into the flight, three terrorists - Kenan (Murathan Muslu), Daniel (Paul Wollin) and youngster Vedat (Omid Memar) - take over the aircraft. Tobias issues a "7500" (hijack in progress) code. All that is protecting the injured pilots and the security of the 80 people on the flight is the cockpit door.
The film starts slowly, building atmosphere through the pre-flight chit-chat between the pilots and a leisurely take-off. I loved this development of character by Oscar-nominated shorts director Patrick Vollrath. But when the action starts, it starts with a bang and continues in truly tense and visceral style. There's a sense of creeping dread when you realise the terrorist's use of hostages to get the door open, and of who the hostages might be.
I note that one of the "thanks" for the film was director Paul Greengrass, who of course made the outstanding 9/11-themed "United 93" back in 2006. It would be fascinating to understand whether this was a "thank-you" for the inspiration the classic film gave Vollrath, or if there was some practical consultancy undertaken there.
Star of the show here is Joseph Gordon-Levitt who delivers a peerless performance as the pilot under extreme stress. Veering cyclically through terror, emotional breakdown and calm 'training-kicking-in' modes, it's a performance that is almost Oscar nomination-worthy in my book. He's on screen for virtually every shot of the film, and really earned his fee here. He makes for a very believable pilot.
I've read other comment that says the terrorists are rather 2-dimensional in their attempts to "do a 9/11". And to a degree I agree. A nice angle though is the relationship that develops between Tobias and young Vedat in the second half of the movie. There's a 'Stockholm Syndrome' vibe going on here, but this never quite gets resolved satisfactorily.
As such, unfortunately this 'back 9' never really quite lived up to the promise of the first 45 minutes for me. And as a single-location story that had nowhere else to go, the abrupt ending will not be to the liking of some I'm sure.
Not to be confused with the 2014 horror "Flight 7500", this is for once a B-movie that's real nail-biter. The movie doesn't pull its punches, and although there is little of the more graphic violence actually shown, the mind can fill in the gaps effectively which makes for some upsetting moments. Although it never quite lives up to its early promise at only 93 minutes it is strongly deserving of your attention. The movie is available for viewing via Amazon-Prime.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/06/28/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-7500-2020/ .)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
May 10, 2019
Isn’t even entertainingly bad
You know to have low expectations when watching a Jason Statham film, especially one about giant sharks. I had hoped for something similar to Sharknado, a proper cheesy laughingly bad B movie, but sadly The Meg can’t even live up to these very low standards.
For starters, I don’t think this film has any idea what it’s meant to be. Is it serious, is it silly? It ends up being a bizarre mixture of the two which just doesn’t work as both aspects just seem out of place. Whilst I absolutely love the Thai version of Mickey that plays over the end credits, again it kind of seems a bit confused. The script is awful, and the acting for the most part is horrendous. I wanted it to be entertainingly bad, but sadly it was just cringeworthy to the point I was almost embarrassed for them. The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Cliff Curtis as Mac, who is at least pretty funny although sadly underused. Also, what on earth was going on with Jason Statham’s accent? Was it English or American?! And then there’s the plot. It’s very predictable, the first hour is ridiculously dull and then changes into completely farce and unbelievability at the end, with stupid characters doing silly things that just don’t make any sense. Even the CGI was average and nothing exceptional.
I really wanted to like this, at least in a “it’s so bad it’s good” way, but sadly this is just plain old bad.
For starters, I don’t think this film has any idea what it’s meant to be. Is it serious, is it silly? It ends up being a bizarre mixture of the two which just doesn’t work as both aspects just seem out of place. Whilst I absolutely love the Thai version of Mickey that plays over the end credits, again it kind of seems a bit confused. The script is awful, and the acting for the most part is horrendous. I wanted it to be entertainingly bad, but sadly it was just cringeworthy to the point I was almost embarrassed for them. The only person who comes out of this relatively unscathed is Cliff Curtis as Mac, who is at least pretty funny although sadly underused. Also, what on earth was going on with Jason Statham’s accent? Was it English or American?! And then there’s the plot. It’s very predictable, the first hour is ridiculously dull and then changes into completely farce and unbelievability at the end, with stupid characters doing silly things that just don’t make any sense. Even the CGI was average and nothing exceptional.
I really wanted to like this, at least in a “it’s so bad it’s good” way, but sadly this is just plain old bad.
The Cut: AND Product
Book
Two bold new dramas from the author of Shopping & F***ing The CutPaul is an ordinary man with a...
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hellboy (2019) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Oh...hell, no!
HELLBOY?!? HELL NO!
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I would imagine that about 90% of my readership just got what they needed out of my review with that first line and have moved on. For the rest of you, I will now explain why this reboot of HELLBOY is now the "leader in the clubhouse" for worst picture of 2019.
I was pleasantly surprised by the 2004 Guillermo del Toro helmed and written HELLBOY and was even more surprised by how good the del Toro written and helmed HELLBOY II: THE GOLD ARMY (2008) was. I think that this was because there was a driving force - and vision - from a true auteur and was a perfect combination of material and artistic staff - including Ron Perlman in the title role.
This version of HELLBOY has none of that. No vision, no driving force and a "B" performance by David Harbour in the title role. It feels like what it is - a cash grab. I blame the studio who produced this film - Summit Entertainment - for "going on the cheap" on this one.
First off, they tapped a "B Movie" Director, Neil Marshall to Direct this thing. He is known for such artistic successes as DOOMSDAY and THE DESCENT - horror flicks that were heavy on gore, short on characters and plot - and that is what he brought to this film. Why worry about characters, plot or any kind of engaging features (including Special FX) when you can show, yet again, a body getting torn apart and blood spurting all over the screen.
The studio also skimped on the performers. Instead of Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt and Doug Jones you get David Harbour, Daniel Dae Kim, Mila Jovovich and a sleep-walking, just give me my paycheck, Ian McShane. It's like watching the "road company" of a Broadway show. While the actors are game (with the notable exception of McShane), they are "B picture" actors, much like the Director.
And...much like the special FX. I knew, going in, that the early word on this film was not good, but that never stops me. I like to make up my own mind, so I thought I'd "pony up" for the IMAX experience to, at least, see the CGI and FX on as large a screen with as good a sound system as possible. I shouldn't have bothered, for the CGI and FX were mediocre (at best) and all the big screen and sound did was emphasize how low quality the CGI was.
And...finally...the pacing of this film is problematic, at best. This is certainly a film that was written and edited within an inch of it's life for the "short attention span" audience of today. The prevailing theory was "why linger on a plot or a character or a moment when we can quick cut to another body getting pulled in two and watch a plume of blood spurt out in a giant arc)."
There are 2 scenes in the end credits to set up the next film(s) in this series. Films that I seriously doubt will be made. If they are, I hope they pump some more money into the budget and get a creative team with some artistic vision.
A swing and a miss.
Letter Grade: C (and I'm being generous)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018) in Movies
Aug 1, 2018
Quite possibly, the best action film ever made
MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT just might be the best action movie I have ever seen.
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it is that good.
The 6th entry in the MISSION IMPOSSIBLE franchise, this film stars, as usual, Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt, part of the IMF, a secret government entity that takes on the impossible missions that the CIA (and other agencies) won't touch. He is joined, yet again, in this installment of the franchise by his "usual" team, Simon Pegg (Benji), Ving Rhames (Luther), Rebecca Ferguson (Ilse) and Alec Baldwin (IMF Director Hunley). It was fun to have "the band" back together again. They looked like they had a good time filming this and I had a good time watching it.
Jumping right in on the fun is Angela Bassett (BLACK PANTHER) as the head of the CIA, but doing more than just being a thorn in the side of Alec Baldwin. As well as Vanessa Kirby (THE CROWN) as the mysterious "White Widow" and, especially, Henry Cavill, who shows that he can do more than be DC's Superman.
And, finally, the franchise wisely brings back Sean Harris as "big bad" Solomon Lane (think Bond's arch-nemesis Blofeld). He proves to be, yet again, an able adversary for the IMF team.
The plot, of course, is somewhat convoluted, with twists, turns and double-crosses (by both the good and bad guys) throughout this film. If I have a quibble for this film, it is that they got a little "cute" with the plot twists - there was (perhaps) one or two too many "gotchas" - but that is just a quibble, for the plot gets us from point "A" to point "B" nicely.
And when I say "Point A" and "Point B", I mean action set piece "A" to action set piece "B" (and "C" and "D" and "E" and "F"...) - and boy are these action set pieces EXTRAORDINARY!
Director Christopher McQuarrie (he also Directed the previous film in this franchise, ROUGE NATION) is the first person to helm two of these films - and I think it is a smart choice for he established in Rogue Nation an ability to create smart, tense action, chase and fight sequences that are easy to follow and fun to watch.
Credit for most of this fun has to go to 55 year old (at the time of filming) Tom Cruise - looking every bit as fit and capable as a 35 year old Tom Cruise. He dives into the action sequences (literally) with gusto and proves more than capable of delivering the goods. Once again, he does a death-defying stunt that left me amazed.
But, what I really left the theater with was an appreciation for McQuarrie, Cruise and company for delivering an end sequence that earned the build up it was given. EVERY member of the company had something to do and the action in this endpiece was a step up of anything that had come before it - either in the Mission Impossible series, or in any other action flick.
If you are a fan of good, solid action films, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT is one to not miss.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Secrets of a Fangirl in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
Hello, my name is Sophia, and I am a fangirl of many forms. A book with the word "fangirl" on it? YES PLEASE. You know you have my attention.
<h2><em><strong>Secrets of a Fangirl </strong></em><strong>is a book about a fangirl.</strong></h2>
AKA ME! And you, because you've got to be obsessed with something here. Maybe it's over a book or a show or even a movie.
(Are there secrets? Yes, but not deep, dark secrets.)
But namely, <em>Secrets of a Fangirl</em> is about Sarah Anne and her obsession with the MK Nightshade fandom, something she's been a fan of since she first discovered it. While her best friend Roxy has grown out of the series, Sarah Anne remains a fan secretly. She keeps her identity under wraps with a set of rules and continues to do so as she wins a place on a panel for a contest. But during the panel, she finds out her competition disregards her completely, and she wants to prove them wrong by winning the next part of the contest.
<h3><strong>Sarah Anne's parents are with her and I am all for it.</strong></h3>
I love how Sarah Anne's parents are with her the entire time. They show their support and they help her navigate the digital world as she makes her way through the contest. It's something that's important in a world of media, and I'm happy Dionne includes this in the novel.
<h2><strong>Dionne's latest novel is full of moods.</strong></h2>
I opened <em>Secrets of a Fangirl</em> and got swallowed up by the book (maybe it's the other way around). Dionne creates a protagonist all of us can relate to in some way. Throughout the book, Sarah Anne struggles with who she is and who she wants to be: does she embrace her inner nerd or continue stifling it? How can she continue to be who she is while not hiding a vital part of herself?
<em><strong>Secrets of a Fangirl</strong></em><strong> is a fun and quick read from Erin Dionne, with a protagonist that I cheered from the beginning of the novel to the end.</strong>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/secrets-of-a-fangirl-by-erin-dionne-were-all-sarah-anne/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Hello, my name is Sophia, and I am a fangirl of many forms. A book with the word "fangirl" on it? YES PLEASE. You know you have my attention.
<h2><em><strong>Secrets of a Fangirl </strong></em><strong>is a book about a fangirl.</strong></h2>
AKA ME! And you, because you've got to be obsessed with something here. Maybe it's over a book or a show or even a movie.
(Are there secrets? Yes, but not deep, dark secrets.)
But namely, <em>Secrets of a Fangirl</em> is about Sarah Anne and her obsession with the MK Nightshade fandom, something she's been a fan of since she first discovered it. While her best friend Roxy has grown out of the series, Sarah Anne remains a fan secretly. She keeps her identity under wraps with a set of rules and continues to do so as she wins a place on a panel for a contest. But during the panel, she finds out her competition disregards her completely, and she wants to prove them wrong by winning the next part of the contest.
<h3><strong>Sarah Anne's parents are with her and I am all for it.</strong></h3>
I love how Sarah Anne's parents are with her the entire time. They show their support and they help her navigate the digital world as she makes her way through the contest. It's something that's important in a world of media, and I'm happy Dionne includes this in the novel.
<h2><strong>Dionne's latest novel is full of moods.</strong></h2>
I opened <em>Secrets of a Fangirl</em> and got swallowed up by the book (maybe it's the other way around). Dionne creates a protagonist all of us can relate to in some way. Throughout the book, Sarah Anne struggles with who she is and who she wants to be: does she embrace her inner nerd or continue stifling it? How can she continue to be who she is while not hiding a vital part of herself?
<em><strong>Secrets of a Fangirl</strong></em><strong> is a fun and quick read from Erin Dionne, with a protagonist that I cheered from the beginning of the novel to the end.</strong>
<a href="http://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/secrets-of-a-fangirl-by-erin-dionne-were-all-sarah-anne/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.