Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Skyscraper (2018) in Movies
Jul 19, 2018
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (1 more)
House of Mirrors fight scene
The Rock saves it from mediocrity
I have come to respect Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson as a charismatic actor that gives his all in whatever motion picture he is in. He can make bad films seem fun (like the recent RAMPAGE) or elevate good action films to great action films (I'm looking at you FAST & FURIOUS franchise). So, I was was open to checking out the "Die Hard meets Towering Inferno" summer popcorn flick SKYSCRAPER for I was expecting a "B" movie with some outrageous stunts, common-sense defying decision making and a plot by a bad guy that is way too complex all wrapped around Johnson's charisma.
And...that's pretty much what I got.
Skyscraper tells the story of a...ahem...Skyscraper. The "tallest building ever" (are there any other kind in these kinds of films?). The Rock plays a Security consultant who has been brought in to assess the safety and security systems of this building and when he says "I've been all over these systems and know them like the back of my hand", you know that knowledge will come in handy - and it does when the bad guys come to get the McGuffin,
What is a McGuffin you ask? That is Alfred Hitchock's term for the thing that is propelling the plot forward. It doesn't really matter what the McGuffin is, it just needs to be something that one person has and other people are willing to lie cheat, scheme and kill for. In this case it is a flashdrive with sensitive information on it, but it could easily have been "the codes" to some secret device, "tech" that makes the world better (or can generate large sums of money, a treasure of cash or jewels or the latest innovation in dolphin training...you get the idea.
So...the bad guys are after the McGuffin, the Rock is after the bad guys because accidentally trapped in the burning high rise (did I mention that the bad guys started the high rise on fire?) is the Rock's family. This gives our hero "stakes" in this game, so he'll do ANYTHING to save his family.
All pretty predictable, but with the Rock's charm and charisma, it doesn't seem quite so silly. Neve Campbell is back on-screen (where has she been?) as his wife, who (of course) is a kick-ass former Navy Doctor (you know those skills are gonna come in handy). The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable, except, perhaps, Hannah Quinlavan as the main bad guy's henchmen who is indestructible (until, of course, she isn't).
The big disappointment for me in this film is the unfulfilled promise of a few of the premises set up by Writer and Director Rawson Marshall Thurber (CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE). For example, The Rock's character suffers a trauma in the pre-opening credits scene, losing the lower half of a leg (I'm not spoiling anything here, it is in the previews). Exploring his PTSD or the limitations of his handicap would have been interesting, but aside for a couple of grunts...nothing. Another interesting premise is the inside of the building has "it's own eco-system" and you see a lavish forest somewhere in between floors 150-175 (did I mention that this is a really tall building) but they don't really use this set and set it on fire quickly. Finally, they do set up a "house of mirrors" early on that is paid off rather nicely in the end, the highlight in the film for me.
All-in-all a rather mediocre afternoon at the movies. The promise and execution of the premise were not "so bad it's good" nor were they "good" they were just..."fair"...fortunately, you had the Rock to save the day - and the film - yet again.
Letter Grade: B- (I'm probably being generous, but I really liked The Rock in this)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...that's pretty much what I got.
Skyscraper tells the story of a...ahem...Skyscraper. The "tallest building ever" (are there any other kind in these kinds of films?). The Rock plays a Security consultant who has been brought in to assess the safety and security systems of this building and when he says "I've been all over these systems and know them like the back of my hand", you know that knowledge will come in handy - and it does when the bad guys come to get the McGuffin,
What is a McGuffin you ask? That is Alfred Hitchock's term for the thing that is propelling the plot forward. It doesn't really matter what the McGuffin is, it just needs to be something that one person has and other people are willing to lie cheat, scheme and kill for. In this case it is a flashdrive with sensitive information on it, but it could easily have been "the codes" to some secret device, "tech" that makes the world better (or can generate large sums of money, a treasure of cash or jewels or the latest innovation in dolphin training...you get the idea.
So...the bad guys are after the McGuffin, the Rock is after the bad guys because accidentally trapped in the burning high rise (did I mention that the bad guys started the high rise on fire?) is the Rock's family. This gives our hero "stakes" in this game, so he'll do ANYTHING to save his family.
All pretty predictable, but with the Rock's charm and charisma, it doesn't seem quite so silly. Neve Campbell is back on-screen (where has she been?) as his wife, who (of course) is a kick-ass former Navy Doctor (you know those skills are gonna come in handy). The rest of the cast is pretty forgettable, except, perhaps, Hannah Quinlavan as the main bad guy's henchmen who is indestructible (until, of course, she isn't).
The big disappointment for me in this film is the unfulfilled promise of a few of the premises set up by Writer and Director Rawson Marshall Thurber (CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE). For example, The Rock's character suffers a trauma in the pre-opening credits scene, losing the lower half of a leg (I'm not spoiling anything here, it is in the previews). Exploring his PTSD or the limitations of his handicap would have been interesting, but aside for a couple of grunts...nothing. Another interesting premise is the inside of the building has "it's own eco-system" and you see a lavish forest somewhere in between floors 150-175 (did I mention that this is a really tall building) but they don't really use this set and set it on fire quickly. Finally, they do set up a "house of mirrors" early on that is paid off rather nicely in the end, the highlight in the film for me.
All-in-all a rather mediocre afternoon at the movies. The promise and execution of the premise were not "so bad it's good" nor were they "good" they were just..."fair"...fortunately, you had the Rock to save the day - and the film - yet again.
Letter Grade: B- (I'm probably being generous, but I really liked The Rock in this)
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Causeway (2022) in Movies
Feb 10, 2023
Strong Performances
Welcome back, Jennifer Lawrence, the movies missed you.
Shot to stardom early - a 3x Oscar Nominee by the age of 23 (winning once for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK) and the top paid actress in 2015, 2016 - Jennifer Lawrence took a hiatus from filmmaking right before the pandemic.
With the lowkey, PTSD character study CAUSEWAY, let’s hope that Lawrence is back for good.
Directed by Lila Neugebauer (ROOM 104), Causeway tells the tale of Lynsey (played by Lawrence) who returns home after suffering a Traumatic Brain Injury while serving overseas. Once home, she forms an unlikely friendship with James (an Oscar Nominated Brian Tyree Henry) who also has some trauma to work through.
It is a low-key, pensive film about friendship, recovery and dealing with loss/pain. Most of the film is the 2 lead characters talking and in order for it to succeed, the 2 main characters better be performed by 2 charismatic, interesting actors.
And fortunately for CAUSEWAY, it is.
Starting with Lawrence. She is a unique acting talent in that one can see what she is thinking and feeling with a minimum of facial gestures. She draws the audience into her portrayal of Lynsey - making her a person to empathize with (but not pity). Lynsey is strong, fearful, focused and damaged and the audience sees every part of this in Lawrence’s performance. It is a wonderfully understated performance and it’s a shame that she, too, was not nominated for an Oscar.
But, of course, with a talk-y, two character piece, BOTH performances better be Oscar caliber to keep the audience engaged and with the surprising strong and vulnerable performance of here-to-fore known as comedy performer Henry (BULLET TRAIN) Causeway has the 2nd anchor to this film.
When James (Henry’s character) is first introduced, the audience gets the impression that he is the funny, affable, friendly rock that Lynsey needs to get back on her feet, but as the film progresses and we peel back the layers of James’ onion, we find out that he is just as damaged - and as real - as she is. Henry embodies James with the same strength and vulnerability that Lawrence shows as Lynsey - and Henry is a well-deserved Oscar nominee for his work.
Creidt, of course, for this paring - and the performances therein - lies with Director Neugebauer who lets her camera linger on the performances and the emotions that are laid raw in front of the viewer.
Not the fastest paced film, Causeway is a marvelous unlikely pairing of 2 damaged souls portrayed, strongly, by 2 fine actors.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10)
Shot to stardom early - a 3x Oscar Nominee by the age of 23 (winning once for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK) and the top paid actress in 2015, 2016 - Jennifer Lawrence took a hiatus from filmmaking right before the pandemic.
With the lowkey, PTSD character study CAUSEWAY, let’s hope that Lawrence is back for good.
Directed by Lila Neugebauer (ROOM 104), Causeway tells the tale of Lynsey (played by Lawrence) who returns home after suffering a Traumatic Brain Injury while serving overseas. Once home, she forms an unlikely friendship with James (an Oscar Nominated Brian Tyree Henry) who also has some trauma to work through.
It is a low-key, pensive film about friendship, recovery and dealing with loss/pain. Most of the film is the 2 lead characters talking and in order for it to succeed, the 2 main characters better be performed by 2 charismatic, interesting actors.
And fortunately for CAUSEWAY, it is.
Starting with Lawrence. She is a unique acting talent in that one can see what she is thinking and feeling with a minimum of facial gestures. She draws the audience into her portrayal of Lynsey - making her a person to empathize with (but not pity). Lynsey is strong, fearful, focused and damaged and the audience sees every part of this in Lawrence’s performance. It is a wonderfully understated performance and it’s a shame that she, too, was not nominated for an Oscar.
But, of course, with a talk-y, two character piece, BOTH performances better be Oscar caliber to keep the audience engaged and with the surprising strong and vulnerable performance of here-to-fore known as comedy performer Henry (BULLET TRAIN) Causeway has the 2nd anchor to this film.
When James (Henry’s character) is first introduced, the audience gets the impression that he is the funny, affable, friendly rock that Lynsey needs to get back on her feet, but as the film progresses and we peel back the layers of James’ onion, we find out that he is just as damaged - and as real - as she is. Henry embodies James with the same strength and vulnerability that Lawrence shows as Lynsey - and Henry is a well-deserved Oscar nominee for his work.
Creidt, of course, for this paring - and the performances therein - lies with Director Neugebauer who lets her camera linger on the performances and the emotions that are laid raw in front of the viewer.
Not the fastest paced film, Causeway is a marvelous unlikely pairing of 2 damaged souls portrayed, strongly, by 2 fine actors.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 12, 2021
The "non-Sopranos" part of this film worked much better
The new Sopranos prequel film THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a review-proof film. Most people fall into 1 of 2 camps.
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The first, fans of the 1999-2007 landmark HBO series that some (including myself) call one of the best TV series of all time. The folks that fall into this camp will be checking this film out no matter what.
The second are folks that either never saw the series or have only a passing knowledge of it - these folks are (more than likely) gonna take a pass at this film.
And both camps would be right and wrong for THE MANY SAINTS OF NEWARK is a middle-of-the-road film that will be satisfying for SOPRANOS fans, but the part of this film that really, really works well has nothing to do with the series.
Written by Sopranos creator David Chase, TMSON is set in the late 1960’s-early 1970’s and tells the tale of a young Tony Soprano and his introduction to the North Jersey mafia and the charismatic mob boss who he is drawn to.
The first 15 minutes of this film were written specifically for SOPRANOS fans for it is here that you are introduced to younger versions of many of your favorite characters. From Tony to Uncle Junior to Livia (Tony’s Mom) to Pauly Walnuts, Silvio and “Big Pussy” they are all there - along with a few others you don’t know (and it is not a spoiler to say, there is a reason that they never made it to the TV series). You are also introduced to Tony’s Father Johnny Soprano, Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti and the center of this film, the son of the Boss “Uncle” Dickie Moltisanti (father of future TV Series character Christopher).
It’s an enjoyable enough introduction, but it is nothing new. The characters sit around, talk, act tough and eat. Something that we’ve seen in countless mob movies before. Chase and Director Alan Taylor (THOR: THE DARK WORLD) appear somewhat bored with this part of the film - almost as if they are saying “here they all are, enjoy this for we have a more interesting story to tell”. This first 15 minutes of the film seem to go on forever.
And then the movie - and Chase’s ideas and Taylor’s Direction - kick in.
And this is where TMSON begins to escalate as the story splits into 2 parts - the first following Dickie (Alessandro Nivola) and the 2nd following one of his “runners” (Leslie Odom, Jr.) who is destined to become a powerful boss of the “Black Mafia”.
It’s a smart juxtaposition of story, but unfortunately for SOPRANO’s fans, the first story (following Dickie) and including most of the Soprano’s characters is the less interesting of the 2 stories. It is the journey of Leslie Odom, Jr.’s character that makes for a more compelling story. It is as if Chase had an interesting idea for a mob film but knew he would not be able to get it made unless he tied it somewhat to a Sopranos story.
Leslie Odom Jr. is magnetic as Harold McBrayer, the former numbers runner for Dickie that has an awaking through the Black Power movement of the late ‘60’s and becomes a formidable mob boss in his own right. This half of the movie/story is intriguing and interesting for you never know in what direction it is going to land. This “B” story is free to be whatever it wants/needs to be and this freedom elevates it.
The same cannot be said for the “A” story - the journey of Dickie Moltisanti. Alessandro Nivola is charming enough as this sadistic, sociopathic mobster, but he is saddled with too much TV show baggage to become a character on his own. Specifically his mentorship and (ultimate) disassociation with the young Tony Soprano (played by Michael Gandolfini, the son of the late James Gandolfini who played Tony in the TV series). I felt like these characters were burdened with the weight of the TV show and the need to pay homage to what will be coming in their lives via the TV show and to shoehorn in each character along the way.
Consequently some great actors like Vera Farmiga (Tony’s mother Livia), Jon Bernthal (Tony’s father), and Corey Stoll (as Uncle Junior) are all filming extended cameos. They do a good (enough) job bringing the essence of the characters from the TV Series to this film, but they just don’t have enough to do. I would love for these 3 to spin-off on their own.
The same can be said for Billy Magnussen (Pauly), John Magaro (Silvio) and Samson Moeakiola (Big Pussy). They all do a nice job bringing the younger versions of these characters to life (especailly Magaro) but they just don’t have enough to do.
And then there is Ray Liotta’s over-the-top performance as Mob Boss “Hollywood” Dick Moltisanti. Ove-the-top doesn’t even begin to describe the performance he is giving. I will give him credit, though, he does tone it down about 1/2 way through the film, but…geez…the first part…wow.
Ultimately, the failure of the “A” story to captivate dooms this movie to mediocre status. I would have loved for Chase to really sink his teeth into the “B” story - and to let Leslie Odom Jr. really fly as a character and and actor.
But that would have defeated the purpose of making a Sopranos prequel - a prequel that, perhaps, shouldn’t have been made in the first place.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
May 9, 2019
I'm always wary heading into comedies, and the majority of my reviews for the genre usually open with some intro along those lines. On the whole I'm usually disappointed with what I see, particularly as the trailers tend to show literally every single laugh out loud moment from the film, leaving very little else to enjoy. Mrs B joined me for this particular cinema trip, and we have a bit of a track record recently for picking movies to go and see together which then turn out to be a disappointment, so I was doubly worried. Coincidentally, as we pulled into the cinema car park, an ad for Long Shot played on the radio. It's outrageously funny! Absolutely hilarious! The funniest movie in years! Etc etc... All the usual claims, and mighty big words to live up to.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Seth Rogen is Fred Vlarsky, a scruffy investigative journalist who we first meet while working undercover at a white supremacist meeting. The meeting naturally doesn't go well, especially as Fred is a jew, and things only go from bad to worse when Fred finds himself out of work the next day. Meanwhile, we're introduced to Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron), Secretary of State with plans to run for president in the next election. She leads a very hectic life, barely getting chance for any downtime in-between working on improving her popularity score, constant phone call interviews and trying to deal with her bumbling, clueless boss, the president (played by Bob Odenkirk).
Fred's best friend Lance attempts to cheer him up by taking him to a swanky party where Boyz II Men are performing, and it's during this party that Fred and Charlotte both notice each other from across the room. Fred recounts to Lance an embarrassing story from when he was 13 and a 16 year old Charlotte babysat for him one evening. When the two meet up again at the party soon after, they immediately hit it off.
Charlotte is on the lookout for a writer to help write her speeches and hopefully boost her popularity score, so she decides to hire Fred on the basis that he's likely to know her a lot better than anyone else and therefore likely to write better material for her. Fred immediately joins the team, travelling the world at Charlotte's side and getting to know more about her in order to come up with great speeches.
Being a rom-com, it's not really a spoiler to say that our two main characters eventually get together romantically. That being said, I felt the trailer for Long Shot pretty much gave away the majority of key plot points, as seems to be the norm these days, and I was left with very little that actually felt like a surprise when I saw it. Luckily, the final twenty minutes or so contain plenty of unseen material and themes, which despite becoming slightly absurd, actually contain some of the funniest and most charming moments of the movie.
How much hilarity you find in Long Shot is really going to depend on how much you like Seth Rogen and his particular style of comedy. If an overdose of f-bombs, dick jokes and drug related humour are your thing, you'll be fine. To be honest, I'm not usually a big fan of his, although I do like a few of his movies. But thankfully, in this he wasn't too overbearing, allowing Charlize Theron to shine through with her own fair share of funny lines and moments. Their characters, and most importantly their chemistry together, is totally believable, and makes the movie that much more enjoyable. Supporting cast consist of Andy Serkis as a creepy Rupert Murdoch/Donald Trump hybrid, but this is primarily all about the unlikely relationship between Fred and Charlotte, and for the most part it works extremely well.
I'm a big fan of the TV show Madam Secretary, which also features a strong lead performance from Téa Leoni as Secretary of State. Her character is also currently considering running for president, in a show with some tight, well written and at times witty, political story-lines. I couldn't really help but compare Long Shot to that, and as a movie I felt it struggled at times to balance the tone and keep the pace, feeling way too long as well.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Feb 19, 2018
The cast (2 more)
Wakanda
The villain
Some side characters feel under developed (1 more)
Some CGI not great
Following on from the light-hearted romps that made up the MCU last year, Black Panther comes along and reminds us that the franchise can be dark, it can be gritty, and it can combine comedic elements with its more serious stories seamlessly when it puts its mind to it.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Last seen in Captain America: Civil War, we re-join T’challa not long after that films conclusion. He’s about to be made king and he’s apprehensive about what that means and what the future of his country, Wakanda, holds. On top of that, he’s struck with a disturbing secret from his now deceased fathers past that threatens to alter everything.
First up, the cast. Chadwick Boseman is once again superb in the lead role. He plays T’challa with a degree of calmness that really makes him feel like a real and well-rounded character. But the surprise here is just how well everyone else does. Some characters don’t get quite as much attention as they deserve (there are two romance plots that feel a little shoehorned in) but when it comes to the people playing these roles- they all do superb work. Danai Gurira has shown what she can do on The Walking Dead (a show she is now so much better than), she brings a whole new level to her performance here and steals many scenes she’s in. Andy Serkis is another highlight. He reprises his role as Ulysses Klaue from Avengers: Age of Ultron and is clearly having a ball in the role. Always an underrated actor, he brings life and comedy to the role here and he’s another scene stealer. Props too to Martin Freeman. He is able to turn his character from an unlikable smug man to someone I found myself truly rooting for. Best of the bunch for me though is Letitia Wright as Shuri, in fact I think she could well be one of my favourite characters in the whole MCU so far. She’s a delight every single time I saw her and I really hope her role continues to develop as the franchise continues.
Now, about the villain. The MCU has almost always had a villain problem (one not exclusive to the MCU to be fair). The list of memorable villains for me only really consists of Loki and Vulture (Spiderman: Homecoming), now though- Killmonger can be added to that short list. His backstory isn’t overly original, but thanks to the always dependable Michael B Jordan he is utterly compelling. The performance here sells it and I found myself feeling sympathy for him despite the things he was doing. Hell, there were even times that I was rooting for him. That doesn’t happy very often and I’ve got to give the film credit for pulling it off.
Onto Wakanda, this is a fully realised and fascinating place to spend time. It was so much bigger than I expected and I’m excited to rewatch this (in 4k) to see all the details about I may have missed. It does however lead me on to a fault with the film. The CGI here isn’t always as great as it could be. There were numerous times when I felt I was watching actors perform against green screen and the mountain location was one of the more notable. It wouldn’t be such an issue if this wasn’t a prominent location that is used repeatedly for some of the movies biggest moments. There’s other instances too where Black Panther’s ideas aren’t realised as well as I’m sure they hoped. It doesn’t ruin the film by any means, but it is disappointing when lesser movies have managed better.
All in all though, this was a delightful movie and my favourite entry in the MCU since Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Ryan Coogler continues to bring the goods to the work he does and I can’t wait to see what he does next. Even more so I can’t wait to see what Black Panther does next. Now, onto Avengers: Infinity War in just two months’ time.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Feb 3, 2019
Good Fun
With the help of a close friend, Shaun (Simon Pegg) sets out to his rescue his mum during a zombie apocalypse and hole up at their favorite pub The Winchester.
Acting: 10
Pegg delivers a strong performance in his role as Shaun. You can’t decide whether Shaun is just a plain loser or if he’s just oblivious to the people around them and their feelings, particularly his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). Pegg has a way of keeping you guessing from one scene to the next. Just when you think you can figure his character out, he evolves just a little bit, enough to remain interesting. The entirety of the cast breathes life into this comedy horror film.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in a very unique way that helps to drive the narrative. It has the feel of a horror movie, but you’re never really frightened. It’s just as gory and in-your-face as any zombie movie I’ve seen, but sometimes those same scenes will have you cracking up. It was very cool how they capture the graduation of the first twenty-four hours. It started with a couple of one-off strange incidents. Before long, the streets were swarming and things were out of control. Very well-done.
Conflict: 10
Zombie films/shows should never be about the zombies, but about survival and the reality of the human spirit. You wanna find out who you really are? Get thrown into the middle of an apocalypse. Shaun of the Dead takes the nature of the human spirit and fleshes it out over the course of the film. Some people see tragedy and they run from it while others, like Shaun, take the bull by the horns and go right at it. The conflict succeeds in the group not just taking on the zombies but handling their internal squabbles as well.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 7
There were a number of funny, memorable events that stick out. I won’t ruin them, but my personal favorite was the car scene where seven survivors had to squeeze into a little sedan. The hilarity that ensues as they move from Point A to B is pretty awesome. There is also a touching moment within that same scene that adds emotional power to the movie. There are a number of scenes like this here, scenes that can make you laugh and make you feel at the same time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Overall: 83
Shaun of the Dead is one of those movies where you fall in love with it more and more the more times you revisit it. I wasn’t a fan my first viewing, but noticed a lot of things the second time around that made sense and added to the overall strength of the movie in a subtle way. Good watch.
Acting: 10
Pegg delivers a strong performance in his role as Shaun. You can’t decide whether Shaun is just a plain loser or if he’s just oblivious to the people around them and their feelings, particularly his girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield). Pegg has a way of keeping you guessing from one scene to the next. Just when you think you can figure his character out, he evolves just a little bit, enough to remain interesting. The entirety of the cast breathes life into this comedy horror film.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
The film is shot in a very unique way that helps to drive the narrative. It has the feel of a horror movie, but you’re never really frightened. It’s just as gory and in-your-face as any zombie movie I’ve seen, but sometimes those same scenes will have you cracking up. It was very cool how they capture the graduation of the first twenty-four hours. It started with a couple of one-off strange incidents. Before long, the streets were swarming and things were out of control. Very well-done.
Conflict: 10
Zombie films/shows should never be about the zombies, but about survival and the reality of the human spirit. You wanna find out who you really are? Get thrown into the middle of an apocalypse. Shaun of the Dead takes the nature of the human spirit and fleshes it out over the course of the film. Some people see tragedy and they run from it while others, like Shaun, take the bull by the horns and go right at it. The conflict succeeds in the group not just taking on the zombies but handling their internal squabbles as well.
Genre: 6
Memorability: 7
There were a number of funny, memorable events that stick out. I won’t ruin them, but my personal favorite was the car scene where seven survivors had to squeeze into a little sedan. The hilarity that ensues as they move from Point A to B is pretty awesome. There is also a touching moment within that same scene that adds emotional power to the movie. There are a number of scenes like this here, scenes that can make you laugh and make you feel at the same time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 7
Overall: 83
Shaun of the Dead is one of those movies where you fall in love with it more and more the more times you revisit it. I wasn’t a fan my first viewing, but noticed a lot of things the second time around that made sense and added to the overall strength of the movie in a subtle way. Good watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cold War (2018) in Movies
Feb 15, 2019
A meditation on love
There are some movies that I can bang the review out the moment I leave the theater (for example, ANY movie starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). There are other films that I need to sit with for a few days and sort out my feelings and thoughts about them. Such is the case with the Polish film COLD WAR.
I am an "Oscar completist" and, thus, needed to see this film, not because I am a big fan of foreign films or because I am culturally literate, but because the Director of this film, Pawel Pawlikowski, was nominated for an Oscar for Best Director.
And I'm glad I saw this film, for COLD WAR is a rich, thoughtful, meditation on love and sacrifice that is full of mood and emotion. This film was conceived, written and directed by Pawlikowski and it shows on the screen. There is much heart on display here. It is said that Pawlikowski patterned the two lead characters after the tumultuous relationship of his parents (he even gave them his parents name), so I gotta think there is some knowledge and depth to these characters and their situations that resonate.
I walked into this film not knowing much about the plot or characters and this actually worked in the favor of the film, so I won't say much about it now except to say that this film follows the characters Zula (Joanna Kulig) and Wiktor (Tomasz Kot) as they experience life and love in Poland in the years just following WWII, the "Cold War" years.
As far as the acting goes, both Kulig and Kot are strong and they share a rich chemistry with each other. The film crackled when these two personalities were on the screen together and didn't crackle when they weren't together, so that must say something for their performances. Anyone else on the screen is "fine" (read: forgettable) in service of the plot and the two leads.
But, make no mistake, this film is a Director's film and Pawlikowski deserves the Academy Award nomination he received. The scenes are lush, and very "European" (lots of shots of still objects with a single viola playing in the background). The film was shot in black and white and this really helps the "behind the Iron Curtain" feel of things.
This film was also nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, and I think it has a good shot for that award (Pawlikowski is, I feel, a long shot for his award). Which makes this film worth seeing, just know you are getting a Polish language film, centered on two characters, with lots of long, lingering "beauty" shots setting up environment and feel. Don't expect fast pacing and action.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I am an "Oscar completist" and, thus, needed to see this film, not because I am a big fan of foreign films or because I am culturally literate, but because the Director of this film, Pawel Pawlikowski, was nominated for an Oscar for Best Director.
And I'm glad I saw this film, for COLD WAR is a rich, thoughtful, meditation on love and sacrifice that is full of mood and emotion. This film was conceived, written and directed by Pawlikowski and it shows on the screen. There is much heart on display here. It is said that Pawlikowski patterned the two lead characters after the tumultuous relationship of his parents (he even gave them his parents name), so I gotta think there is some knowledge and depth to these characters and their situations that resonate.
I walked into this film not knowing much about the plot or characters and this actually worked in the favor of the film, so I won't say much about it now except to say that this film follows the characters Zula (Joanna Kulig) and Wiktor (Tomasz Kot) as they experience life and love in Poland in the years just following WWII, the "Cold War" years.
As far as the acting goes, both Kulig and Kot are strong and they share a rich chemistry with each other. The film crackled when these two personalities were on the screen together and didn't crackle when they weren't together, so that must say something for their performances. Anyone else on the screen is "fine" (read: forgettable) in service of the plot and the two leads.
But, make no mistake, this film is a Director's film and Pawlikowski deserves the Academy Award nomination he received. The scenes are lush, and very "European" (lots of shots of still objects with a single viola playing in the background). The film was shot in black and white and this really helps the "behind the Iron Curtain" feel of things.
This film was also nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, and I think it has a good shot for that award (Pawlikowski is, I feel, a long shot for his award). Which makes this film worth seeing, just know you are getting a Polish language film, centered on two characters, with lots of long, lingering "beauty" shots setting up environment and feel. Don't expect fast pacing and action.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Woman in the Window (2021) in Movies
May 24, 2021
It is NOT Rear Window
A piece of advice for you when you start to watch the “Alfred Hitchcock-esque” thriller, THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW. If you are at all a Hitchcock fan, you will be spending the first part of this film comparing it to the 1954 classic REAR WINDOW and this would be a disservice to this film.
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
For…THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is no Rear Window, nor is it intended to be. It has many, many elements that are the same as Rear Window (most notably, the setup: a housebound person thinks they have witnessed a murder in a neighboring apartment), and THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW is just like Rear Window…until it isn’t.
And that’s when I started to like this film, when I stopped comparing it (in my head) to Rear Window.
Based on the Best Seller by A.J. Finn (adapted for the screen by Tracy Letts who also appears in the film), THE WOMAN IN THE WINDOW tells the tale of Anna Fox, an agoraphobic who watches life go on outside her window. When she thinks she has witnessed a murder, she (and the audience) must decide is it real? Did she truly witness a murder? If so, who dunnit? If not, is she just hallucinating things? Is Anna crazy?
The answers to these questions were satisfying enough to me that I ended up enjoying the film experience that I had - but I have to be honest and tell you that, for awhile, my enjoyment of this film was hanging by a thread.
Amy Adams (ENCHANTED) is terrific - if unspectacular - in the title role. Her Anna Fox is murkey (that is meant as a compliment) and struggles through most of the film trying to determine what is real and what is an illusion. Adams does a “journeyman’s” job with this role. She acts her way through it in such a workmanlike fashion that I almost forgot that it is Adams on the screen.
Wyatt Russell (Kurt’s son who is also the new Captain America in THE FALCON AND THE WINTER SOLDIER) fares the best of the Supporting players for he has the most to do. Unfortunately, Director Joe Wright (ATONEMENT) and Screenwriter Letts wastes such strong actors as Gary Oldman (DARKEST HOUR), Julianne Moore (STILL ALICE), Anthony Mackie (The Falcon in the Marvel Movies), Jennifer Jason Leigh (HATEFUL 8), Brian Tyree Henry (GET OUT) and Letts himself in terribly underwritten roles that serve (mostly) as red herrings - and each of their characters are interchangeable and forgettable.
And that, ultimately, is where this film comes apart. While I cared about Anna and the solution to the mystery - I didn’t care very much about the other characters involved.
Which is why, I think, I’ll pull my DVD of Rear Window out and watch that film for the umpteenth time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Jul 1, 2021
It Doesn't Work
While surfing through my various streaming services looking for something to get swallowed up into my couch while watching, I encountered GREENLAND a film about a “planet killing” comet hurtling towards Earth starring that noted thespian Gerard Butler.
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)