Search
Search results
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Predator (2018) in Movies
Oct 15, 2019 (Updated Dec 4, 2019)
A pretty shoddy sequel with some good moments here and there
There a lot of issues that kept The Predator from being a decent movie...
The special effects are a big one. A lot of the CGI in this is pretty dodgy. Especially for gore moments. It boggles my mind why a lot of horror films these days favour CGI over practical effects. Films like Alien, and The Thing (80s) stand as a testament to how practical horror work can be truly memorable.
In The Predator however, it's looks cartoony and fake - at one point I had to check I was watching a movie from 2018!
The dog creatures also look horrible - just bland and dark grey CGI blobs with teeth.
The 'classic' Predator that we see throughout this film is for the most part a guy in a suit, and it looks way better.
The characters are also an issue. They're not on the same level as awful as the characters from Predators, but they're all just unfunny walking cliches, which is a shame as there are some talented actors involved, trying to do the best with what they've been given.
The script attempts to shoehorn in plot strands that are not particularly relative to the overall narrative, including a complete tone deaf side plot about autism, which drags down what should be a pretty straightforward story.
The action isn't too bad, pretty entertaining as far as popcorn horror blockbusters go, with some creative deaths thrown in, but once again, the films over reliance on average CGI sours it all somewhat.
The Predator is not the awful film I had heard about, but it's predictably not a scratch on the original. Maybe it's time for the franchise to wrap it up.
The special effects are a big one. A lot of the CGI in this is pretty dodgy. Especially for gore moments. It boggles my mind why a lot of horror films these days favour CGI over practical effects. Films like Alien, and The Thing (80s) stand as a testament to how practical horror work can be truly memorable.
In The Predator however, it's looks cartoony and fake - at one point I had to check I was watching a movie from 2018!
The dog creatures also look horrible - just bland and dark grey CGI blobs with teeth.
The 'classic' Predator that we see throughout this film is for the most part a guy in a suit, and it looks way better.
The characters are also an issue. They're not on the same level as awful as the characters from Predators, but they're all just unfunny walking cliches, which is a shame as there are some talented actors involved, trying to do the best with what they've been given.
The script attempts to shoehorn in plot strands that are not particularly relative to the overall narrative, including a complete tone deaf side plot about autism, which drags down what should be a pretty straightforward story.
The action isn't too bad, pretty entertaining as far as popcorn horror blockbusters go, with some creative deaths thrown in, but once again, the films over reliance on average CGI sours it all somewhat.
The Predator is not the awful film I had heard about, but it's predictably not a scratch on the original. Maybe it's time for the franchise to wrap it up.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Dragged Across Concrete (2019) in Movies
May 5, 2019
What a thrill ride!
So to say director S. Craig Zahler is one of my favorites working today is an understatement. I was a HUGE fan of his first two films, Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99 (read my reviews on both on Smashbomb) so I was really looking forward to this one. Of course the film did not play at a cinema local to me, so I had to wait until Blu Ray to give it a watch and I was enthralled.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
Two cops on suspension for using excessive force against a drug dealing hoodlum leave very different lives off the job. One is prone to violence living in a bad neighborhood desperate for better for his wife and child and the other just wants to marry the girl of his dreams and is now worried she will no longer have him.
Out of desperation, the men decide to participate in a criminal enterprise to better their own personal situations and end up inside something much bigger. The decisions they make within the context of the second act of the film will have profound repercussions throughout the remainder of their lives.The two cops do what they have to do to try and make their lives better and help their families through hard times.
I don't want to sound like a movie snob here, but after viewing the film I checked out the MANY 1 star reviews this film received on IMDb and was not surprised. I am not making fun of the modern movie going public at all. I enjoy explosions and superheroes as much as anyone; however, for some time I have strived to find the different, unusual, deeper film where its heroes don't wear spandex and everything is not just black and white. Those films have their place.
This film was kind of "Tarantino-esque" in the way the story was told, the way the characters conversed with each other and even the fact that the characters were multilayered and very interesting. There were also several stories going on simultaneously at the beginning and didn't combine until well into the film. One could argue the 2 hour and 40 minute film "dragged" (no pun intended) at times or had unnecessary scenes, but no one complained when Marge Gunderson had lunch with Mike Yanagita, so that didn't bother me here.
Both of Zahler's previous films were violent and had that one squeamish scene you could hardly believe happened as did this film.
I can safely say this movie isn't for everyone and its slow pace will turn off some modern moviegoers who expect non stop action. Having said that, I still highly recommend this movie and would love to know your opinion once watching it.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stillwater (2021) in Movies
Aug 10, 2021
Matt Damon - solid central performance (1 more)
Intelligent script
Life is Brutal
Positives:
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
- Matt Damon needs to be the rock at the centre of the movie to hold it all together. The movie lives or dies on believing that he could be a God-fearing oil roughneck and all-round fuck-up. And he does a really good job here in doing that.
- The script excels in a number of ways:
-- it's great in building, and in some cases destroying, the relationships between the characters. In particular, the portrayal of the pseudo-family that develops with Bill, Virginie and Maya is very sweet. A lounge scene, without dialogue, with each looking in turn at each other is glorious;
-- the story isn't handed to you on a plate, but your understanding of what's going on evolves as you watch it;
-- a twist in the story (no spoilers) is unexpected and savage, and requires real concentration to understand!
Negatives:
- Although I appreciated the leisurely introduction of the characters and their relationships, the film was a bit flabby in the telling. At nearly 140 minutes, I think its about 20 minutes too long.
- For balance and a different view, the wife was very upset and cross about the treatment of Maya at one point in the movie. (There are clear repercussions though). And she wasn't a fan of Abigail "Little Miss Sunshine" Breslin's performance (although I personally though it was "OK").
Summary Thoughts on "Stillwater": It's billed as a "Thriller" and although it does have it's moments of tension, it's much more a drama reflecting a flawed father trying to make amends for his failures in the past. As such it might plod a bit for those looking for more of an action-oriented thriller. But I found it thoroughly absorbing overall, and a marked improvement on "Spotlight" by the same director (which seemed to garner praise and Oscar nods from everyone other than me!).
A curiosity for me is the rating for this one.... a "15" certificate in the UK for "Strong Language". I'd assumed that the "15" rating was due to the racist dialogue, present in one particular brief scene. But that seems to be a secondary concern to the BBFC (see their web site). I'm sure they have word-tally counts. But, to me, there wasn't enough bad language in this one to merit the rating: I personally think it should have been a "12A".
But overall this is a solid piece of movie storytelling, whether controversial or otherwise. And Recommended.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Lee (2222 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
Gerard Butler returns once again as secret service agent Mike Banning in this third entry in the 'fallen' series. The first movie, Olympus Has Fallen (not to be confused with White House Down, the Channing Tatum movie which was also released in 2013 and also covered a similar plot!) saw Banning trapped in the White House during a terrorist attack. It had an enjoyable Die Hard feel to it, and a sequel was inevitable. London Has Fallen (2016) saw Banning venture to London for the funeral of the Prime Minister and becoming involved in a terrorist plot to assassinate the world leaders who were in attendance. Not quite as good as Olympus, losing that enclosed claustrophobic setting from the first movie, but it was still a fun piece of action.
Which brings us to Angel Has Fallen. That angel being Mike Banning, guardian angel to President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) who has now been promoted from vice president in the last movie. Mike is starting to feel the strain of old age and his years of being a hero and one man army - insomnia, a reliance on pills, migraines. His secret service colleagues, even the president, are noticing his health issues and his doctor plainly tells him "You're a disaster waiting to happen"!
This time round, the terrorist attack comes in the form of a swarm of drones, which appear in the skies over the lake where the president is fishing on a boat. Taking out the secret service team on protection duty, both the president and Banning are forced into the water in order to try and avoid being blown to pieces. But, instead of being hailed a hero once again, Banning is now accused of masterminding and orchestrating the attack and it becomes clear that he is being setup, forcing him to go on the run in order to try and clear his name.
Once again, it's all ridiculous crowd pleasing stuff. Some elements make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's not exactly difficult to work out who the bad guys are right from the offset - hell, the trailer even gives one of them away! The action for the most part is fairly enjoyable, although it does suffer from the occasional bit of dodgy CGI and there are moments of dark close-up action - quickly edited, shaky camera work, which make it frustratingly difficult to work out what on earth is going on at times.
As with London Has Fallen, we lose that claustrophobic and confined Die Hard action once again, giving us something more alike to The Fugitive and a poor mans John Wick 3. But overall, it's still an enjoyable ride, with a fun cameo from Nick Nolte as Mike's long lost father and a third act which actually delivers.
Which brings us to Angel Has Fallen. That angel being Mike Banning, guardian angel to President Trumbull (Morgan Freeman) who has now been promoted from vice president in the last movie. Mike is starting to feel the strain of old age and his years of being a hero and one man army - insomnia, a reliance on pills, migraines. His secret service colleagues, even the president, are noticing his health issues and his doctor plainly tells him "You're a disaster waiting to happen"!
This time round, the terrorist attack comes in the form of a swarm of drones, which appear in the skies over the lake where the president is fishing on a boat. Taking out the secret service team on protection duty, both the president and Banning are forced into the water in order to try and avoid being blown to pieces. But, instead of being hailed a hero once again, Banning is now accused of masterminding and orchestrating the attack and it becomes clear that he is being setup, forcing him to go on the run in order to try and clear his name.
Once again, it's all ridiculous crowd pleasing stuff. Some elements make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and it's not exactly difficult to work out who the bad guys are right from the offset - hell, the trailer even gives one of them away! The action for the most part is fairly enjoyable, although it does suffer from the occasional bit of dodgy CGI and there are moments of dark close-up action - quickly edited, shaky camera work, which make it frustratingly difficult to work out what on earth is going on at times.
As with London Has Fallen, we lose that claustrophobic and confined Die Hard action once again, giving us something more alike to The Fugitive and a poor mans John Wick 3. But overall, it's still an enjoyable ride, with a fun cameo from Nick Nolte as Mike's long lost father and a third act which actually delivers.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lucy in the Sky (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Natalie Portman and Jon Hamm together (1 more)
Interesting premise
Mind. Blown - A thoughtful film that's hard to like.
Natalie Portman plays the eponymous Lucy Cola, a NASA astronaut who has achieved her ambition of reaching space and experienced the enormity of the universe first hand. Her mind is officially blown. Such that, on returning to earth, nothing seems ‘enough’ any more. Her family; her comfortable home; her life.
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
remember thinking, after reading the first couple of chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey two years ago, “Is this guy a vampire?” E.L. James’ description of Christian Grey brought to mind Edward of the Twilight series and the heroine, Anastasia Steele’s clumsy entrance into Grey’s office reminded me of Bella. I was so certain I would find out Grey was a vampire in the following chapters.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
So it wasn’t too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, “It’s an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. “ That being said, I’m hardly a book snob. I’ll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, I’ll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasn’t too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask “Wait. She went to WSU?” When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, “Already disappointed.” We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Grey’s world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Grey’s wealth when he whispered, “This movie is so full of it.” I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, “You know you can’t find parking that easily in Seattle.”
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. It’s been reported that E. L. James’ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it won’t be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that I’m invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion – in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I don’t think I’ve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Schrodinger's Film
There is a thought experiment that is used to help make sense of the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Say you have a cat, a box and a fragile vial of poison. You put the cat and the poison in the box knowing that the vial may break, you lunatic.
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
At this point, so goes the thought experiment, until we can perceive whether or not the cat is dead, the cat is dead AND alive simultaneously, and it is only when you look into the box that you know whether you have a friend for life or a Korean meal.
I bring this up because I often insist that I prefer a bad movie with great moments than a movie that’s adequate across the board, but Guy Ritchie’s most recent film certainly puts that to the test. It’s almost my favourite film of the year but is full of nigh-unforgiveable blunders that I don’t think I can watch it again. But I don’t regret seeing it. King Arthur is both good and not good and the cat is still in the box.
Well, I might as well start with what’s good about the film. For one, the character of Arthur himself has a pretty interesting arc. Normally interpretations of the Arthur myth focus on the King bit, so despite it being yet another origin story, it at least is for a character who rarely gets one, and it’s an interesting spin on the reluctant hero arc.
In addition, the world itself feels like it desperately needs a hero. You get the sense that this world is falling apart, which is much better than some other chosen one narratives like Harry Potter, where even when Voldemort took over the wizarding world he didn’t seem to do anything. Also, this is a fantasy film that isn’t just Lord of the Rings again, but a more Celtic mystic mythology that is ripe for exploration.
Then there’s Jude Law, who is so moustache-twirlingly evil that he’s hilarious. He’s clearly having the time of his life playing this cartoon super villain and making him campy enough to be fun while still threatening and compelling when he needs to be.
Shame about the rest of the cast, who all have the same personality, that of “Ah’m just one o’ tha lads, apples and pears, apples and pears.” It’s like a Chelsea game but set in the Dark Ages. So it’s identical to a Chelsea game. The only exception is Astrid Frizbee’s mage, whose intense magic power is so devastating that she manages to put a sleep spell on the audience every time she opens her noise-hole and lets out a monotone bored drone.
There’s also the action, and Hollywood, we need to talk. I thought that shaky cam was just a phase, but I’ve seen you doing it again, and you need to stop. I’ve played VR games where you do nothing but ride particularly unstable cows and came out the other end less motion sick than your sword fighting scenes. Come on, you’re better than this, and we just what’s best for you, so just buy a steady-cam already.
Maybe it’s Guy Ritchie himself, though. Nothing in the film seems to last longer than three minutes aside Arthur’s whining. Sometimes it works, like the very snappy but informative way we see Arthur grow from stupid baby to stupid adult, and sometimes it’s stupid, like when an entire other movie’s worth of content gets squashed into an uninspired montage.
But that’s the great dilemma; the montages are good and bad, like the movie itself. You will only enjoy the movie if you enjoy the movie but if you don’t then you won’t. I write this piece a defeated critic, ladies and gentlemen. Is it worth seeing? I don’t really know. A bigger fan of Guy Ritchie or quantum mechanics than I will probably get something out of it and there are worse movies out there, but it also can’t help but disappoint somehow. The cat isn’t dead, but it has a bit of a cold.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/25/schrodingers-film-king-arthur-legend-of-the-sword-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Splice (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
I consider myself a pretty well educated horror-movie buff. As a child, my brother lovingly showed me movies like Critters” and Ghoulies, along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th series. Freddy Krueger scared me no more than Ronald McDonald did (and no, I don’t have a fear of clowns). I have pretty much grown immune to horror films and their ilk, so it takes a lot to get a rise out of me. Sadly, like many many others, Splice failed miserably in doing so.
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?
Meet Clive (Adrian Brody) and Elsa (Sarah Polley), two very cliché, defiant scientists who lead their industry by creating a prototype of the first ever genetically engineered creature. These two creatures, dubbed “Fred” and “Ginger”, claim a genetic code that they hope to someday use for veterinary and medicinal advances. In light of their success, Elsa conveys her desire to start working with human genes, a desire her supervisors immediately shoot down. Ever rebellious, Elsa and Clive begin splicing human genomes on their own, hoping to create a creature that will be unequaled in its genetic capabilities and advances. Yet their result turns out to be something far more humanoid than previously hoped. Soon they find themselves with a creature, lovingly named “Dren”, that’s startlingly human and yet embodies the abilities of amphibian and bird, a creature that’s capable of employing human emotion and intelligence while reveling in its animalistic tendencies. Even with Elsa's nurturing, their experiment takes a turn for the worse.
At first I had high hopes for this film. It was an independent film that premiered at Sundance (it's also being shown currently at the Seattle Independent Film Festival), had Adrian Brody as its lead, and one of my favorite directors, Guillermo Del Toro as one of its executive producers. All in all, I thought this might prove to be one of those rare horror-movie exceptions. But I was wrong.
Remember that time when you first watched Saw in the movie theater, and how comical that scene was where Cary Elwes' character is sawing off his leg to break free to save his family, only to have the game end less than an hour or so later? It was supposed to be one of those "dramatic" moments but everyone ends up laughing instead. Yeah, that's kind of what happens in Splice. Numerous times throughout the movie, the audience ended up laughing at the more dramatic moments. Sadly, the plot in and of itself was decent.
Perhaps if there had been a bigger budget or if more attention had been paid to the acting and the movie's resolution it might have turned out in much better form. It's my understanding that the original Sundance film had been edited and altered, thus resulting in what we see. Whether this was for better or worse, I've no clue. Given the ridiculous ending and the generic horror-movie allure, it flopped terribly and the ending just seemed thrown together more than anything else. Plus, if the plot didn't get under your skin, Dren's chirps and warbles would.
The opening credits were amazing (I have to give credit where credit is due) and the beginning scenes weren't terribly bad. Overall, the movie is more comical than terrifying and the plot weaker than watered-down instant coffee. There are far too many holes in the storyline and Adrian Brody's character wasn't strong enough to carry a cast as obscure as this. I would wait to see what the DVD would hold for this one. Maybe the extras will help fill in the gaps or the unedited film will present itself in a different light?