Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Tomorrow War (2021) in Movies
Jul 16, 2021
Slow to start but finishes as a fun Summer flick
The reviews that I had read before I watched the Chris Pratt/Alien Invaders flick THE TOMORROW WAR was that it was a pretty okay film for the first hour and a half, but goes “off the rails” in the last 1/2 hour.
I couldn’t disagree more. The Tomorrow War is a safe and confined film for the first hour and a half and only becomes interesting when they take off all constraints and “goes for it” in the last 1/2 hour.
Directed by Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE), THE TOMORROW WAR follows a working class guy (Chris Pratt) who is recruited to head into the future to help fight alien invaders. He teams up with one of the leaders of the “Tomorrow War” (Yvonne Strahovski) for whom he has a special bond with to recapture Earth for the humans.
The premise is solid enough, but the Direction by McKay keeps the film in the “safe zone”, never veering away into anything interesting and original, almost like McKay wanted to keep the events of the future “believable”. This is a miscalculation by McKay (and Pratt) and makes the film “fine”, but not much more than that.
Pratt’s performance is also in the “safe zone” and tones down his usual daffy charm and charisma - rarely a good idea with a Movie Star who relies on these qualities. Strahovski is solid and believable (enough) as the tough-as-nails scientist as one of the leaders of the future humans. She and Pratt worked well off each other and this helped get me through the middle of this film (where it sags under the weight of it’s own pretentions).
Also along for the ride is Sam Richardson (VEEP) as a fellow Tomorrow War draftee who provides much needed comic relief in the first part of the film. But he does veer into the “over-acting/caricature” territory that these types of parts can lead to. It was also good to see Mary Lynn Rajskub (Chloe in the TV Series 24) up on the screen again. I was rooting for her throughout the film.
But it is the work of the always great J.K. Simmons that salvages the film. He only appears in 1 scene in the first 3/4 of this movie - he is the estranged father of Pratt’s character - but when these 2 join forces for the last 1/2 hour, the film takes a dramatic turn to the Summer Blockbuster over-the-top action hero fun flick that it probably needed to be from the beginning. Simmons looks like he is having a blast taking out Alien after Alien and Pratt suddenly looks interested and his natural charm and charisma comes out.
Watch the first hour and a half as a setup for the last 1/2 hour. If you are looking for mindless Summer entertainment, the final part of this film will fit the bill, indeed.
Letter Grade: B- (the first hour and a half takes some initiative to get through)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I couldn’t disagree more. The Tomorrow War is a safe and confined film for the first hour and a half and only becomes interesting when they take off all constraints and “goes for it” in the last 1/2 hour.
Directed by Chris McKay (THE LEGO MOVIE), THE TOMORROW WAR follows a working class guy (Chris Pratt) who is recruited to head into the future to help fight alien invaders. He teams up with one of the leaders of the “Tomorrow War” (Yvonne Strahovski) for whom he has a special bond with to recapture Earth for the humans.
The premise is solid enough, but the Direction by McKay keeps the film in the “safe zone”, never veering away into anything interesting and original, almost like McKay wanted to keep the events of the future “believable”. This is a miscalculation by McKay (and Pratt) and makes the film “fine”, but not much more than that.
Pratt’s performance is also in the “safe zone” and tones down his usual daffy charm and charisma - rarely a good idea with a Movie Star who relies on these qualities. Strahovski is solid and believable (enough) as the tough-as-nails scientist as one of the leaders of the future humans. She and Pratt worked well off each other and this helped get me through the middle of this film (where it sags under the weight of it’s own pretentions).
Also along for the ride is Sam Richardson (VEEP) as a fellow Tomorrow War draftee who provides much needed comic relief in the first part of the film. But he does veer into the “over-acting/caricature” territory that these types of parts can lead to. It was also good to see Mary Lynn Rajskub (Chloe in the TV Series 24) up on the screen again. I was rooting for her throughout the film.
But it is the work of the always great J.K. Simmons that salvages the film. He only appears in 1 scene in the first 3/4 of this movie - he is the estranged father of Pratt’s character - but when these 2 join forces for the last 1/2 hour, the film takes a dramatic turn to the Summer Blockbuster over-the-top action hero fun flick that it probably needed to be from the beginning. Simmons looks like he is having a blast taking out Alien after Alien and Pratt suddenly looks interested and his natural charm and charisma comes out.
Watch the first hour and a half as a setup for the last 1/2 hour. If you are looking for mindless Summer entertainment, the final part of this film will fit the bill, indeed.
Letter Grade: B- (the first hour and a half takes some initiative to get through)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Top Gun: Maverick (2022) in Movies
Jun 1, 2022
The very definition of "Summer Flick"
There is absolutely no denying it - TOP GUN: MAVERICK is the very definition of a “Summer Blockbuster” movie - the kind of film that will appeal to a wide variety of audiences who want nothing more than to escape into a world of heroes (and villains), good vs. evil, with lots of fast chases and things exploding.
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is just what you get with the sequel to the 1986 hit - a summer blockbuster, which will do well at the box office - just don’t expect tricky plot developments or in-depth character examinations. The plot and the characters are just there to deliver the blockbuster goods.
Bringing back the main character from the first TOP GUN film, Tom Cruise as Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, TOP GUN: MAVERICK shows Maverick 30 years (or so) after the events of the first film with “just one more” mission to go. Maverick is brought back to train a dozen hot-shot pilots, including one that is the son of his best friend - a friend who’s death Maverick has been traumatized by during the past 30 years.
Cruise, of course, is perfect in this role. He has the right blend of arrogance and charisma to pull of the fine balance needed between these two traits. Jennifer Connelly is on board as the requisite love interest and she more than holds her own with Cruise in what is an underwritten role as are all of the roles in this film by writer Peter Craig (BAD BOYS FOR LIFE) with Direction by Joseph Kosinski (OBLIVION).
Miles Teller (the son of the man who Maverick is mourning, who blames Maverick for his dad’s death), John Hamm (the a-hole boss that thinks that Maverick is “writing checks his body can’t cash”), Glen Powell (the arrogant young hot shot) and the rest are all one-note caricatures that leaves the audience not really caring about their fate.
Only Val Kilmer (reprising his role as “Iceman” from the first movie) comes out of this unscathed for his character is suffering from throat cancer and cannot speak above a whisper (much like Kilmer in real life). It was good to see him on the big screen again.
But…you don’t come to this film for the characters, you come to this picture for the high-flying action sequences, and…in the last part of this film…you get ‘em in spades! Unfortunately, you get way too LITTLE action in the first part of this film, it’s mostly nostalgic fond remembrances of the first film, so I found myself wriggling in my seat waiting for the action that I knew was to come.
It’s the perfect summer movie and one that is far more superior being seen on the big screen. It is the type of flick that one doesn’t have to pay to close attention to, but when it does grab your attention, it does it well…enough.
If you have the need…the need for speed…you can do much worse than TOP GUN: MAVERICK.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Asteroid City (2023) in Movies
Jun 30, 2023
Too "Wes Anderson" For It's Own Good
If you watched the Oscar Nominated Wes Anderson film THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL back in 2014 and thought to yourself - “I want more of this type of thing - only turned up to 11”, then does the BankofMarquis have a film for you.
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
ASTEROID CITY is the most Wes Anderson film that Wes Anderson has ever filmed.
It is up to you to decide whether that’s a good or bad thing.
A movie within a play within a narration (yes, it’s that “meta”), ASTEROID CITY tells the tale of a group of folks congregating in a timeframe that seems to scream “1950’s America” in a very small, isolated Southwestern American town that seems to scream “Los Alamos, New Mexico” and the life, loves, adventures - and wry comments of the events therein - that these folks encounter/endure all wrapped up in the pastel colored, dry-pan delivered style that has become the signature of a Wes Anderson film.
Populated - as is always the case these days with a Wes Anderson film - by a veritable who’s who of actors who seem to be in on the joke - or at least want to appear that they are part of the “cool kids club”. Names like Anderson regulars Jason Schwartzman, Liev Schrieber, Willem Dafoe and Ed Norton mix in with Anderson newcomers like Tom Hanks, Steve Carrell and Scarlett Johansson succeed more than they fail, but the film falls down from the heights of THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL by becoming “too cute” for it’s own good.
Central to the story is the relationship between Schwartzman’s War Photographer and Johansson’s movie star but this relationship fails to draw the audience in because of the presentational, deadpan style of Anderson’s delivery of the material. Same goes for Hanks’ portrayal of Schwartzman’s father, Carrell’s portrayal of the Motel Manager and Schrieber’s portrayal of another parent at the hotel.
Jeffrey Wright and Tilda Swinton are the most successful of the players as their characters are aloof and mysterious - and the style that Anderson throws at this film leans towards these types of characters…but it leaves the audience at arms’ length.
Special notice should be made of Margot Robbie’s one scene as her character is spoken of, but not seen…until she is.. and her scene is the most interesting in the film.
And…the BankofMarquis hasn’t even mentioned Edward Norton’s playwright (who writes the play that this movie is based on) and Adrian Brody as the Director of the play. The are brought on screen from time to time to archly comment and/or explain the goings-on.
This being an Anderson film, the visuals are stunning and original (but, ironically, familiar to Wes Anderson regulars) and this is the main reason to see this film, it is visually rich and interesting…and different…of a film to look at.
But…Wes Anderson needed to lean away (not into) being…Wes Anderson.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
David McK (3425 KP) rated Assassin's Creed: Renaissance in Books
Jan 28, 2019
The Assassin's Creed video-games, for anyone who has been living in a cave for the last (roughly) decade or so, are Ubisoft's free-roaming murder-em-up games, detailing the ongoing secretive war between the order of the Assassins, and that of the Templars.
To date, I've played pretty much all of those games (or, atl least, those released for the PS3 and PS4), with the exception of Assassin's Creed: Unity. I'm also a heacvy reader, and have also seen to so-so Assassin's Creed movie (starring Michael Fassbender) that made the - in my eyes, wise, - decision to introduce a new character and historical period.
As such, I think it's fair to say I know enough about the series itself.
Of that series, the most enjoyable game (IMO) have been those set in the Renaissance period; those starring Ezio Auditore - the protaganist of this novel. Unfortunatley, however, this is a virtual retreading of the plot of the game, complete with passages where Ezio learns how to blend in (C'mon! It makes sense in the game, but not exactly an exciting narrative) or has to race hios accomplices from points A to point B (again, gives the player something to do in the game, but not exaclt exciting to read about).
It also doesn't help that this liberally mixes modern-day English and expressions with Italian phrases throughout (that require constant look-up to the glossary), nor that the author seemingly manages to make an entertaining game and compelling central character(s) into a bit of a chore to read through. On the plus side, it does away with all the modern-day Desmond sections from the game ...
Overall, however, I'm not impressed (sadly).
To date, I've played pretty much all of those games (or, atl least, those released for the PS3 and PS4), with the exception of Assassin's Creed: Unity. I'm also a heacvy reader, and have also seen to so-so Assassin's Creed movie (starring Michael Fassbender) that made the - in my eyes, wise, - decision to introduce a new character and historical period.
As such, I think it's fair to say I know enough about the series itself.
Of that series, the most enjoyable game (IMO) have been those set in the Renaissance period; those starring Ezio Auditore - the protaganist of this novel. Unfortunatley, however, this is a virtual retreading of the plot of the game, complete with passages where Ezio learns how to blend in (C'mon! It makes sense in the game, but not exactly an exciting narrative) or has to race hios accomplices from points A to point B (again, gives the player something to do in the game, but not exaclt exciting to read about).
It also doesn't help that this liberally mixes modern-day English and expressions with Italian phrases throughout (that require constant look-up to the glossary), nor that the author seemingly manages to make an entertaining game and compelling central character(s) into a bit of a chore to read through. On the plus side, it does away with all the modern-day Desmond sections from the game ...
Overall, however, I'm not impressed (sadly).
David McK (3425 KP) rated Star Wars Legends Epic Collection: The New Republic, Vol. 2 in Books
Jan 30, 2019
One of the biggest casualties to come out of Disney's acquisisiton of LucasArts back in 2012 was the abolition of the old 'Expanded Universe' content: suddenly, all those connected stories, comics and video-games were no longer considered in-canon; no longer relevant.
While understandable in light of their plans to create new movies (of which we have had one so far - 'The Force Awakens' - with another off-shoot to come this year in 'Rogue One') my sense is that there was a bit of a back-lash to this (hence the reason for these 'Legends Epic collections'): I'm even guilty of it myself a bit, in that I would quite have liked to see a movie based on either [a: Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s [b: Heir to the Empire|216443|Heir to the Empire (Star Wars The Thrawn Trilogy #1)|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1398253847s/216443.jpg|1133995] trilogy, or even on any of the X-Wing books/comics.
It's those comics that comprise this collection, which consists of the following stories:
X-Wing: Rogue Leader 1-3
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Rebel Opposition (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: The Phantom Affair (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: Battleground: Tattoine (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Warrior Princess (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron Special
as well as some content from 'Star Wars Tales' #12 and #23
As this is a compilation of such, the art style is not consistent throughout (although it is consistent in-story: I found some tales to have better, clearer art than others. I'm also somewhat surprised that the left out those stories connected to Baron Soontir Fel in this collection!
While understandable in light of their plans to create new movies (of which we have had one so far - 'The Force Awakens' - with another off-shoot to come this year in 'Rogue One') my sense is that there was a bit of a back-lash to this (hence the reason for these 'Legends Epic collections'): I'm even guilty of it myself a bit, in that I would quite have liked to see a movie based on either [a: Timothy Zahn|12479|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/authors/1215545810p2/12479.jpg]'s [b: Heir to the Empire|216443|Heir to the Empire (Star Wars The Thrawn Trilogy #1)|Timothy Zahn|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1398253847s/216443.jpg|1133995] trilogy, or even on any of the X-Wing books/comics.
It's those comics that comprise this collection, which consists of the following stories:
X-Wing: Rogue Leader 1-3
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Rebel Opposition (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: The Phantom Affair (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron: Battleground: Tattoine (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Squadron: The Warrior Princess (1-4)
X-Wing: Rogue Sqaudron Special
as well as some content from 'Star Wars Tales' #12 and #23
As this is a compilation of such, the art style is not consistent throughout (although it is consistent in-story: I found some tales to have better, clearer art than others. I'm also somewhat surprised that the left out those stories connected to Baron Soontir Fel in this collection!
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Doom: Annihilation (2019) in Movies
Feb 7, 2020
Doom Annihilation is not a good film, no sir, but it's honestly not as terrible as I expected it to be.
The main problem stems from the low budget - a low budget doesn't always mean a bad end product, but when that end product is a sci-fi horror based on a hyper violent video game, there are going to be issues.
The whole film has a plastic cheap look to it. It works to a certain degree - it does have a kind of Starship Troopers-esque aesthetic (a good thing), but the cheap looking weapons and re used sets are a glaring eyesore.
The monsters a very generic for the most part, but I do respect that the bulk of them are practical. The CGI that is used is mostly awful, with a few exceptions - the occasional exterior shots of the base are passable, and the ending sequence doesn't look too bad - but otherwise, it's used infrequently, and for good reason.
The actors involved all do the best with what they're given - lead Amy Manson is likable enough - but the poor character writing provides us with a group of cliché ridden Marines and scientists that feel like cannon fodder.
The only concrete connection to the Doom game series that I noticed was the character of Dr Betruger, but that's it. The fact that Bethesda and id Software stayed well away from this, and that the production team were not allowed to use anything from the 2016 Doom reboot onwards, shows that maybe this shouldn't have been a thing.
As a schlocky B-movie sci-fi horror, it's not completely terrible, but I can't help but feel it shouldn't have the Doom brand attached to it, and even a cheeky Wolfenstein reference won't change my mind on that.
The main problem stems from the low budget - a low budget doesn't always mean a bad end product, but when that end product is a sci-fi horror based on a hyper violent video game, there are going to be issues.
The whole film has a plastic cheap look to it. It works to a certain degree - it does have a kind of Starship Troopers-esque aesthetic (a good thing), but the cheap looking weapons and re used sets are a glaring eyesore.
The monsters a very generic for the most part, but I do respect that the bulk of them are practical. The CGI that is used is mostly awful, with a few exceptions - the occasional exterior shots of the base are passable, and the ending sequence doesn't look too bad - but otherwise, it's used infrequently, and for good reason.
The actors involved all do the best with what they're given - lead Amy Manson is likable enough - but the poor character writing provides us with a group of cliché ridden Marines and scientists that feel like cannon fodder.
The only concrete connection to the Doom game series that I noticed was the character of Dr Betruger, but that's it. The fact that Bethesda and id Software stayed well away from this, and that the production team were not allowed to use anything from the 2016 Doom reboot onwards, shows that maybe this shouldn't have been a thing.
As a schlocky B-movie sci-fi horror, it's not completely terrible, but I can't help but feel it shouldn't have the Doom brand attached to it, and even a cheeky Wolfenstein reference won't change my mind on that.
JT (287 KP) rated Chloe (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
As sexual thrillers go this is hardly up there with the best of them, in fact it boarder lines on B-movie soft porn. Director Atom Egoyan is no stranger to this type of erotic genre having previously helmed such films as Exotica and Where The Truth Lies. But this latest turn lacked something in the plot and it just seemed to fall at the last hurdle.
With three exceptional acting talents, more so from Seyfried whose role in this as the sexy femme fatal is a far cry from Mamma Mia. For Moore it was a role that may have caused much whispering in Hollywood if anything for the lesbian clinch mid way through.
From the outset it looks as if we are going to be in for a great little thriller. Moore’s Catherine is desperate to find out if her husband (Neeson) is as honest as he says he is. But she is apparently drawn into Chloe’s sexual tales and meets up with her on countless occasions to have the events graphically recited back to her like some x-rated book club.
This is where the film seems to lack the tension that we might have been hoping for, with the exception of maybe a little flurry at the end. It never really digs its nails underneath the skin and claws at us, we hope that it will arrive at some point but alas it never does. The ending is disappointing.
However, Seyfried’s sheer beauty is not for question, she is curvaceous and captivating and her scenes with Moore are extremely sensuous, one in particular will make you sit bolt up right in your seat.
At the end of it all you’ll walk away flustered, but it certainly won’t be from the gripping suspense.
With three exceptional acting talents, more so from Seyfried whose role in this as the sexy femme fatal is a far cry from Mamma Mia. For Moore it was a role that may have caused much whispering in Hollywood if anything for the lesbian clinch mid way through.
From the outset it looks as if we are going to be in for a great little thriller. Moore’s Catherine is desperate to find out if her husband (Neeson) is as honest as he says he is. But she is apparently drawn into Chloe’s sexual tales and meets up with her on countless occasions to have the events graphically recited back to her like some x-rated book club.
This is where the film seems to lack the tension that we might have been hoping for, with the exception of maybe a little flurry at the end. It never really digs its nails underneath the skin and claws at us, we hope that it will arrive at some point but alas it never does. The ending is disappointing.
However, Seyfried’s sheer beauty is not for question, she is curvaceous and captivating and her scenes with Moore are extremely sensuous, one in particular will make you sit bolt up right in your seat.
At the end of it all you’ll walk away flustered, but it certainly won’t be from the gripping suspense.