Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Sophie Wink (11 KP) rated It's Kind of a Funny Story in Books
Jun 20, 2019
"Insightful and utterly authentic... This is an important book." - The New York Times Book Review
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
I do very much agree with this comment as it is insightful reading about a mind that is depressed as it can be very hard to compute if you are not depressed yourself, even though this is just one story of an individual with depression it does give you a really good indication of what it's like. And from what I've just read, it sounds horrendous and I would never wish it on anybody.
I really like how the story is set out as even though it only takes place over a few days, the flashbacks convey the depth of the story and really show the development of the main character Craig. I love the way the novel helps the reader understand the mental illness with the little man in his stomach, the soldier in his head, over-sweating, his tentacles, and anchors, it is a clear projection of what it is like. Overall the portrayal of this increasingly common illness is beautifully done.
The character Craig is very likable, even the title immediately portrays the kind of guy that he is; funny and good yet complex. Correct me if I am wrong but he is kind of a walking contradiction as while he can be quite melodramatic he also plays things down, he can be very funny but inside his mind is cluttered with sadness. While he sometimes seems angry he can never actually convey that through his actions. The depth of this character is very thorough, it works really well as even though this character is so complex Vizzini portrays him in such an understandable way. The majority of the characters have two common traits; they're likable yet deeply troubled. I enjoyed reading about everyone in the hospital as there was something about the way they're described and portrayed that makes them, somehow familiar and very much likable. I think the development of the main character is truly fantastic and it made me smile, that's all I can really say without giving too much of the story away.
One thing I really did love within the book was the connection between school and stress with these illnesses as far too often it takes up a good portion of why the individual has a mental illness. From personal experience I know that it is beyond difficult to balance everything between, socialising, family time, the school itself, homework, revision, exams, hobbies, extracurricular activities and jobs and then within that you have to eat, drink and sleep. I definitely connected with the story and Craig himself considering this theme. Another aspect of the story I really love is him finding his love for art. That really made me smile, as it was sometimes my anchor too.
As for the movie... It was terrible. I feel bad for saying it but it really was awful. A lot of the acting in it was really bad, a lot of the plot taken from the story was wrong and mixed up which to an extent I understand as obviously you cannot have every detail of the book in the film but it was too muddled. I think the only character that I thought was portrayed quite well in the movie was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis as I connected with him and really felt sympathy and joy for him, there is also a lot of humour associated with him too that I liked and really did laugh out loud at. I thought that the guy who played Craig was really bad, I felt nothing for the character in the movie compared to the book, the acting overall was bad and his chemistry with the other actors wasn't all that great either. I apologise for the bad review of the movie but I have to be honest, as an aspiring actor myself I would want to know if I had done well or not.
Overall the novel is incredibly insightful and beautifully written.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Polar (2019) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
The Black Kaiser - 8/10
Polar is a 2019 neo-noir/action movie based on the Dark Horse Comics, webcomic series Polar: Came From The Cold, written by Victor Santos. It is directed by Jonas Akerlund and written by Jayson Rothwell. Starring Mads Mikkelsen, Vanessa Hudgens, Katheryn Winnick, and Matt Lucas.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
Duncan Vizla, a.k.a. "the Black Kaiser" (Mads Mikkelsen), is an assassin for the Damocles corporation. It is company policy that all assassins retire at age 50. He checks with a doctor about his health which is good and his accountant about his wealth; which having made the maximum pension fund contributions as possible, has him set for life. In 14 days, on his 50th birthday, he'll be entitled to a payout of $8 million dollars. Mr. Blut (Matt Lucas), has Vivian (Katheryn Winnick), Duncan's handler, contact him for one last mission. Unbeknownst to Duncan this is a plan to have him killed to avoid paying out his pension.
This me was awesome despite what critics say. I read a lot of bad comments talking about it being abhorrent and vulgar. It is rated TV-MA and not for kids and it is very adult. Plus it is a movie about assassins, people who kill for money, so what do you expect. I was surprised how much I liked the Black Kaiser character, since he didn't speak much during the film. Almost felt like a spaghetti-western in some ways, with the silent gunslinger aspect to it. I thought the film was very well done when it came to the acting, the action, and the plot. I'm sure that there are points to what the critics have said but the movie was too awesome for me to care. One thing, the main bad guy i didn't much care for. He did get me to not like him and with acting that's harder than getting people to like you. Also I enjoyed the group of assassins who are employed with the Damocles corporation, for the most part they were pretty interesting and diverse and added something extra to the film. And I was not prepared for Vanessa Hudgen's character but she had a surprising role and did very well too. I give this movie a 8/10.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020
Ever since Captain America: The Winter Soldier, Marvel Studios have pretty much been on a hot streak. It's easy to forget that this titan of a movie house still had to finds its feet once upon a time, and unfortunately they do have a handful of underwhelming titles in their arsenal.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
Iron Man 2 is in of these titles, and whilst bit a far cry from a bad movie, the formula wasn't quite there yet.
It's main issues comes from the writing I think. The plot dates to tackle issues such as Tony Stark's trouble with alcohol, a result of slowly being poisoned by the very mechanism that's keeping him alive. He hits rock bottom, pisses off everyone he loves, creates a new element (in probably the most ridiculously convoluted and stupid scene in the MCU) and somewhere amongst all this, there's some big dumb superhero action.
As much as I admire this route, the balance is off, and a big chunk of the movie gets bigger down by these issues.
The side plot that involves a B list villain Whiplash is a nice touch, but it's ultimately wasted in yet another ending brawl that features the hero against an evil version of himself, the second Iron Man film to be released and the second Iron Man film to feature a final boss in a bigger Iron Man suit. It just doesn't feel over imaginative.
It's not all bad though - Iron Man 2 boasts an incredible cast of talent. Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow of course return from the first movie. Mickey Rourke is the aforementioned Whiplash (I find it hard to dislike Mickey Rourke in general), Don Cheadle takes over the mantle of War Machine, and of course we get the first appearance for Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow.
And a big reason why Iron Man 2 is better than it should be is down to the always fantastic Sam Rockwell. He plays secondary villain Justin Hammer and he oozes charisma, and fits in effortlessly opposite Downey Jr.
Other than that, the effects still hold up for the most part, and the set pieces are fun - the racing track scene is a particular highlight, and its always a treat to see the wider MCU being established as the main plot chugs along.
Iron Man 2 isn't as good as it's predecessor, and is at the lower and of the MCU quality spectrum, but there's still a lot to enjoy if you switch off a bit.
tonidavis (353 KP) rated Death Note (2017) in Movies
Aug 25, 2017
If you like the Anime save yourself don't watch! (5 more)
Ruined entire premise of light
Ruined L
Bad writing
What's with this teen angst
With seriously never been so angry
I'm used to Hollywood ruinning Japanese anime by now. However this is possibly the worst anime film adaption ever.
Anime/magna Light is a genius who at the start truly does what he believes is right and just and later power turns him mad, into a genius on power who clever enough to manipulate a good of death. What does this film give us a whingey teenage angst ridden pathetic human being who in love with the cliche of cliche cheerleader.
Don't get me started with the cheerleader
L anime and manga is a genius who has beyond increble presence power and essence not to mention his stance and love of cake is notorious that makes you love him more. This L is just bad and that giving him credit.
William Dafoe plays the voice of Ryuk which isn't enough to do anything for this film unfortunately because I do love William Dafoe and no one plays villain like him but the writing and general Hollywood let see if we can make generic cash cow by using popular teen actors rather than getting decent script writer or following any semblance of plot has ruined this movie
Anime/magna Light is a genius who at the start truly does what he believes is right and just and later power turns him mad, into a genius on power who clever enough to manipulate a good of death. What does this film give us a whingey teenage angst ridden pathetic human being who in love with the cliche of cliche cheerleader.
Don't get me started with the cheerleader
L anime and manga is a genius who has beyond increble presence power and essence not to mention his stance and love of cake is notorious that makes you love him more. This L is just bad and that giving him credit.
William Dafoe plays the voice of Ryuk which isn't enough to do anything for this film unfortunately because I do love William Dafoe and no one plays villain like him but the writing and general Hollywood let see if we can make generic cash cow by using popular teen actors rather than getting decent script writer or following any semblance of plot has ruined this movie
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Joy (2015) in Movies
Jan 16, 2018
Decent
Joy never fully grabbed me and I wanted it to. Joy (Jennifer Lawrence) is a genius in her own right, but the bad breaks and trials of life have prevented her from rising to become anything more than a struggling matriarch trying to keep her entire family from killing each other. After coming up with a brilliant idea she decides to throw her all at it to make her dreams come true.
On paper, it sounds like just the movie I would fall in love with. However, it gets off to a very slow start due to some chronological jumbling. While I was still able to follow along just fine, I found my interest waning.
The payoff at the ending didn't do much to satisfy the bad taste in my mouth. I was frustrated for Joy throughout the film all the while rooting for her success. In the end, it just wasn't quite what I was hoping it would be.
I did think the film was aided by some very strong acting performances. Whether you loved them or hated them, everyone played their roles extremely well. There were also a handful of surprises over the course of the film that managed to keep me engaged.
Would I watch this again? Sure. Do I need to? Meh. I give Joy a 76.
On paper, it sounds like just the movie I would fall in love with. However, it gets off to a very slow start due to some chronological jumbling. While I was still able to follow along just fine, I found my interest waning.
The payoff at the ending didn't do much to satisfy the bad taste in my mouth. I was frustrated for Joy throughout the film all the while rooting for her success. In the end, it just wasn't quite what I was hoping it would be.
I did think the film was aided by some very strong acting performances. Whether you loved them or hated them, everyone played their roles extremely well. There were also a handful of surprises over the course of the film that managed to keep me engaged.
Would I watch this again? Sure. Do I need to? Meh. I give Joy a 76.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Hands of the Ripper (1971) in Movies
May 27, 2018 (Updated May 27, 2018)
Bring the Daughter; Have some Slaughter
Pretty decent Hammer horror melodrama set in a sort of grab-bag version of late Victorian London. Anna (Rees) grows up an orphan, little suspecting the identity of her father, or the fact that she seems to have inherited his compulsion to kill. An ambitious psychiatrist (Porter) takes her under his wing, believing he can help her with her little problem. (As ever, hubris comes before a gory comeuppance.) Meanwhile, Hammer whips up gallons of fake blood.
Not-bad production values and decent performances go a long way to make up for some fairly preposterous plotting; you get the classic Hammer sense of a traditional costume drama coupling energetically with a disreputable exploitation movie, with a good time had by all. On the one hand this is another tale of an improbably arrogant man whose specific area of brilliance doesn't stop him making a whole series of insanely bad decisions; on the other it is about the power of men to seriously screw up the lives of women in patriarchal societies (so perhaps still somewhat relevant). Film does an interesting little dance, too: are Anna's problems purely psychological or is she genuinely possessed by the spirit of the Ripper? Well put together, some interesting ideas, doesn't outstay its welcome - definitely worth a look if old British horror movies are your thing.
Not-bad production values and decent performances go a long way to make up for some fairly preposterous plotting; you get the classic Hammer sense of a traditional costume drama coupling energetically with a disreputable exploitation movie, with a good time had by all. On the one hand this is another tale of an improbably arrogant man whose specific area of brilliance doesn't stop him making a whole series of insanely bad decisions; on the other it is about the power of men to seriously screw up the lives of women in patriarchal societies (so perhaps still somewhat relevant). Film does an interesting little dance, too: are Anna's problems purely psychological or is she genuinely possessed by the spirit of the Ripper? Well put together, some interesting ideas, doesn't outstay its welcome - definitely worth a look if old British horror movies are your thing.
Awix (3310 KP) rated At the Earth's Core (1976) in Movies
Nov 10, 2018 (Updated Nov 10, 2018)
Second in Amicus's series of Burroughs-inspired pulp adventures with Doug McClure. Adventurers seeking to drill through the mountains from England to Wales take a wrong turn and end up in a terrifying wasteland dominated by sub-human beasts; it takes them a while to figure out their mistake. It turns out the Earth's core is ruled by evil giant pterodactyls with hypnotic powers - having taken a fancy to the local princess (Munro), the beefier of the visitors (McClure) resolves to sort the situation out.
One of the final examples of the kind of cheap and cheerful genre movie that the success of Star Wars the following year was to transform utterly. This one is notable for some of the worst man-in-a-suit monster effects ever seen outside Japan, the closest thing to a bad performance ever given by Peter Cushing, and an oddly inconsistent tone - much of it is rather juvenile, but some of the violence is a bit heavy for what often feels like a knockabout kid's film (the Earth's core is a wholly abstinent place - there isn't even the suggestion of funny business between McClure and Munro). The Iron Mole model is actually not bad, and the prog rock soundtrack certainly makes it distinctive. Kind of fun, in the end. Contains the line 'You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!'
One of the final examples of the kind of cheap and cheerful genre movie that the success of Star Wars the following year was to transform utterly. This one is notable for some of the worst man-in-a-suit monster effects ever seen outside Japan, the closest thing to a bad performance ever given by Peter Cushing, and an oddly inconsistent tone - much of it is rather juvenile, but some of the violence is a bit heavy for what often feels like a knockabout kid's film (the Earth's core is a wholly abstinent place - there isn't even the suggestion of funny business between McClure and Munro). The Iron Mole model is actually not bad, and the prog rock soundtrack certainly makes it distinctive. Kind of fun, in the end. Contains the line 'You can't mesmerise me, I'm British!'
Kim Pook (101 KP) rated Heartthrob (2017) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
After a classmate dies, Sam bumps into a guy from school, Henry, on the beach after the memorial. They don't really get along and she storms off after belittling him. A while later she bumps into him again after work and he offers her a lift home, where she apologises and agrees to go on a date with him, which leads to them becoming a couple.
They seem like a very odd couple from the get go though, Henry comes across as very awkward and you keep expecting something bad to happen, eventually something bad does happen but it seems to take ages to get there just like many other parts of the film.
After a very awkward and way too long pool scene, we find out that Henry is listening to Sam's conversations through what I can only assume is an app on her phone, and that's just the start of the creepiness, as we also discover he is capable of murder when he kills one of Sam's ex boyfriends out of jealousy.
I lost interest very quickly if I'm honest, keir Gilchrist did a good job playing a crazy jealous boyfriend, but the movie wasn't all that great. I don't know if it's the writing or what but it could have been so much better. It was disappointing really as the concept sounded good.
They seem like a very odd couple from the get go though, Henry comes across as very awkward and you keep expecting something bad to happen, eventually something bad does happen but it seems to take ages to get there just like many other parts of the film.
After a very awkward and way too long pool scene, we find out that Henry is listening to Sam's conversations through what I can only assume is an app on her phone, and that's just the start of the creepiness, as we also discover he is capable of murder when he kills one of Sam's ex boyfriends out of jealousy.
I lost interest very quickly if I'm honest, keir Gilchrist did a good job playing a crazy jealous boyfriend, but the movie wasn't all that great. I don't know if it's the writing or what but it could have been so much better. It was disappointing really as the concept sounded good.
Fred (860 KP) rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) in Movies
Mar 15, 2019
Spider-Ham (3 more)
Fantastic design
Good music
Good voice acting
The choppy animation is headache inducing (2 more)
Story is bland
Some of the characters are wasted
Good. Not great.
Here we go again. Another over-rated superhero movie. Yes, it's good, but it's not great. Basically, what we got here is Miles Morales' origin story. I do love the characters & they are all acted well. I love the new Doc Oc & all of the Spider-people. The design of the characters & settings are a sight to see. The main problem is the movement of them. Every other frame is cut out, so the characters have a jerky movement to them. Supposedly, this is meant to encapsulate a comic book. Since a comic book does not move, this is a stupid reason given for lack-luster animation. There are quite a few anime out there today that use CGI-drawn animation. It looks choppy, cheap & crappy. And that's what we got here. Instead of smooth, graceful, Spider-Man like movement, we got what looks like low bitrate video. I truly feel this is why the movie, although it did well, did not do stupendous numbers at the box office compared to other recent animated movies.
Anyway, tossing that aside & taking account the design of the movie, I also found that the story was lackluster. I didn't find it too interesting or original. It just didn't grab me. I felt myself many times saying to myself that nothing special was going on. When they introduced the others from the Spider-Verse, I felt that some of them were a waste of space. Spider-Man Noir, played by Nicholas Cage, was funny but didn't do anything special. The Japanese girl with the robot, was utterly useless. If she wasn't in the film, it would be no different, except maybe to sell some toys. Now, I will say, I loved Spider-Ham, but I've been a fan of his since the 80s & still have all the original comic books. So, I am biased towards him. I would love to see him get his own movie, but I doubt he will.
Anyway, here's my bottom line. The movie was good. The style was great. Music was great. Characters were great. Story was meh. Animation was bad. After I watched the movie, I said, well that was pretty much a waste of time, but I'm not mad I watched. I just probably would never watch it again.
Anyway, tossing that aside & taking account the design of the movie, I also found that the story was lackluster. I didn't find it too interesting or original. It just didn't grab me. I felt myself many times saying to myself that nothing special was going on. When they introduced the others from the Spider-Verse, I felt that some of them were a waste of space. Spider-Man Noir, played by Nicholas Cage, was funny but didn't do anything special. The Japanese girl with the robot, was utterly useless. If she wasn't in the film, it would be no different, except maybe to sell some toys. Now, I will say, I loved Spider-Ham, but I've been a fan of his since the 80s & still have all the original comic books. So, I am biased towards him. I would love to see him get his own movie, but I doubt he will.
Anyway, here's my bottom line. The movie was good. The style was great. Music was great. Characters were great. Story was meh. Animation was bad. After I watched the movie, I said, well that was pretty much a waste of time, but I'm not mad I watched. I just probably would never watch it again.