Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Slither (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Mixing elements of The Blob, The Fly, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Night of the Creeps and countless other horror films, the new Horror/Comedy Slither has oozed its way into theaters with a mix that will likely delight hardcore horror fans.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
The film is set in a small southern town and features the usual mix of horror film stereotypes. There is the Chief of Police named Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillon) who watched over the sleepy town while secretly holding a torch for the lovely Starla Grant (Elizabeth Banks). The only issue is Starla’s older husband Grant (Michael Rooker), who is not only a very prosperous man, but took Starla in when she was younger and provided for her.
Of course there are also the stock characters of the loud and obnoxious Mayor of the town (Gregg Henry), who is more trouble than he is good and spouts a string of profanity and insensitive remarks that would make a Drill Instructor blush. Add to the mix the various assortments of yokels, deputies and towns folk, and you have a setting ripe for invasion.
The invasion arrives in the form of a meteor that breaks apart in the atmosphere save for a small segment that lands harmlessly in the woods. Unfortunately, an organism has hitched a ride on the meteor and in short order a parasitic organism has infected Grant causing him to exhibit odd behavior and have a ravenous desire for large amounts of meat in all forms.
Despite the changes, Grant still has his eye firmly on his wife and as the changes become more and more radical, he becomes even more fixated upon his wife.
Eventually Grant’s odd behavior and ongoing transformation has him on the run from the authorities who organize a manhunt to bring him in and end the carnage in his path.
Naturally things do not go as planned as before long there are hordes of slug like creatures unleashed upon the town whose entire purpose is to infect the town making zombies out of all who are infected.
As if all of this was not bad enough, Bill must figure out how to protect those uninfected people as well as search for a way to end the devastation at all cost.
Slither is a film that strives to blend horror and comedy but seems better suited to be a comedic send up of the horror genre. Unlike the “Scary Movie” series, it does not come in as a parody but rather presents itself as a horror film, yet one that seems devoid of any real suspense or frights. There is plenty of gore, violence, and other mayhem in the film, but at my advanced screenings the vast majority of the film garnered laughs from the audience rather than shrieks.
Since there were several segments of the film that were obviously intended to create laughs such as the zombie family trying to coax their uninfected daughter out of hiding by proclaiming she is missing out on family fun day, and a very gory, yet humorous outcome for a yokel who decides to stand down a very infected Grant armed only with a pistol.
James Gunn who did such a good job with the “Dawn of the Dead” lets it all out as writer and Director for Slither, but seems unsure if he is trying to make a comedy or a horror film with comedic elements. To me the film works best as a comedy as the over simplified resolution combined with the strained performances and simple plot as well as the genuine lack of any suspense or scares seriously undermined this film for me as a horror film.
That being said, if you look at the film as a gross out comedy set amidst a generic horror backdrop where the plot, acting, and other pitfalls were designed elements, then the film works.
If you are looking for a bad horror movie with some funny moments, than Slither may indeed be your thing, as it is either a very bad horror film, or one of the best satirical tributes of the genre to date. I choose to pick the latter.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated Honeymoon (2014) in Movies
May 12, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so I watched Honeymoon a while back (before my hospitalization), but it’s still been lingering at the edges of my mind – more with a what the fuck sort of connotation than anything else. You’ll have to pardon my lack of screenshots, as my Shudder account has lapsed and because of current going-ons (including surgery within the next two weeks), I haven’t had the chance to resubscribe – though I desperately want to.
I don’t really have a huge gripe with the characters in this one. The acting isn’t what bothered me; rather it was the plot. I don’t do so well with WTF moments when they seem to be way out of the ballpark and that appears to be the case here.
Honeymoon is a romantic horror – if such a genre even exists. I mean, you’ve got this newlywed couple set up in a beautiful, rustic cabin in the middle of the woods. (It even has a VCR!) Anyways, wife goes off in middle of the night, claims to be sleepwalking, but oddly enough earlier in the film we meet a childhood friend. From there, things spiral out of control. Paul tries to confront Bea, but she’s all hush-hush about what is going on with her. Turns out, alien things are involved and that, my friends, is where the movie lost me. Well, between that and the marks that show up on Bea’s inner thigh, which makes it all too obvious what really happened to her.
Of course, Paul continues to play dumb for a while. At least, until he finds Bea in the bathroom stabbing herself in the privates over and over. Because apparently this is something a person would do. I mean, I totally would(n’t). This… I honestly don’t know why I was still watching at this point. Normally I’d have turned to something more intriguing, but you know when you simply can’t pull your eyes away? Yeah, that happened here and let me tell you, the next scene in the movie… just no. Nope.
Unrealistic to a fault and messed up beyond measure, Paul shoves his arm up in there, and yanks out what Bea is so desperately trying to pull out. Because… ANATOMY boys and girls. This movie, seriously, crosses into animated porn territory, complete with fisting and pulling worm-like beings out of a woman. I just… no. It’s not even hot.
The conclusion of the film? Stereotypical false happy-ending bullshit that you see in a lot of horror movies. Someone survives, or so it seems, and then of course at the last minute the bad guy goes for the kill. I honestly have not been able to simply let this one out of my mind. It’s just hovered there, like an itch you can’t quite reach, and I’m hoping this little tirade will finally give me the freedom from it I need. Yet somehow, we’ve got semi-decent ratings on Rotten Tomatoes for this film.
I don’t really have a huge gripe with the characters in this one. The acting isn’t what bothered me; rather it was the plot. I don’t do so well with WTF moments when they seem to be way out of the ballpark and that appears to be the case here.
Honeymoon is a romantic horror – if such a genre even exists. I mean, you’ve got this newlywed couple set up in a beautiful, rustic cabin in the middle of the woods. (It even has a VCR!) Anyways, wife goes off in middle of the night, claims to be sleepwalking, but oddly enough earlier in the film we meet a childhood friend. From there, things spiral out of control. Paul tries to confront Bea, but she’s all hush-hush about what is going on with her. Turns out, alien things are involved and that, my friends, is where the movie lost me. Well, between that and the marks that show up on Bea’s inner thigh, which makes it all too obvious what really happened to her.
Of course, Paul continues to play dumb for a while. At least, until he finds Bea in the bathroom stabbing herself in the privates over and over. Because apparently this is something a person would do. I mean, I totally would(n’t). This… I honestly don’t know why I was still watching at this point. Normally I’d have turned to something more intriguing, but you know when you simply can’t pull your eyes away? Yeah, that happened here and let me tell you, the next scene in the movie… just no. Nope.
Unrealistic to a fault and messed up beyond measure, Paul shoves his arm up in there, and yanks out what Bea is so desperately trying to pull out. Because… ANATOMY boys and girls. This movie, seriously, crosses into animated porn territory, complete with fisting and pulling worm-like beings out of a woman. I just… no. It’s not even hot.
The conclusion of the film? Stereotypical false happy-ending bullshit that you see in a lot of horror movies. Someone survives, or so it seems, and then of course at the last minute the bad guy goes for the kill. I honestly have not been able to simply let this one out of my mind. It’s just hovered there, like an itch you can’t quite reach, and I’m hoping this little tirade will finally give me the freedom from it I need. Yet somehow, we’ve got semi-decent ratings on Rotten Tomatoes for this film.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Feb 7, 2018
Surprisingly Entertaining
Contains spoilers, click to show
THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN MILD SPOILERS, but honestly nothing more than I’d already gathered from Twitter and talk /reviews on various other forms of social media. Still, you have been warned. Read no further than the following first paragraph if you don’t want to risk mild spoilage.
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
10 Cloverfield Lane was surprisingly entertaining. I’m not really a huge fan of movies shot in an enclosed space because, in general, how often does that work out well? (Remember the Ashley Judd movie about bugs? Mmhmm.) However, it worked, and worked well in this. Part of this, no doubt, belongs to the fact that John Goodman put on a freaking amazing performance. That man just OWNED this movie. You knew something wasn’t right with him. It was obvious he had some crazy going on. The way he was able to yo-yo between affable and scary, though, was fantastic and kept you guessing as to just how crazy his crazy was. Everything was nailed, from the look in his eyes to the flexing of his hands when he was struggling to keep himself under control. Top-notch!
The other two, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and John Gallagher Jr, also brought good performances to the table and perfectly complimented Goodman’s acting. Winstead, who has one of those “I knowwww you..you’re…you were in something I’ve seen!” faces (she’s actually got quite the list of acting credits to her name), did a great job as a solid female lead. She sold her confusion, wariness, intelligence and strength to you with all the skill of Joel Olsteen convincing christians that their tithes were actually going to go for good works. Considering the man has a multi-million dollar mansion and people still buy that line – that should tell you something! Great job by Winstead. She didn’t shine like Goodman did, but she never faltered either.
This movie quite literally had me on the edge of my seat leaning forward, tips of my fingers near my ears at one point because I was expecting bad loudness. Trachtenburg delivered. From the absurd to the affable family moments, and from the crazy-scary to the Cloverfield freakouts, the only weak part of the film really seemed to be the fact that the ending they gave it wasn’t really necessary. It would have been just as strong if they’d ended it before it went full Cloverfield. It might have even been stronger. It felt like Trachtenburg gave in to ever-present “Action! ACTION! WE NEED ACTION!” push that seems to present in Hollywood now, even if its unnecessary, and then wanted to put everything in a basket with a pretty bow. But ending it right before it went BOO! would have left people walking from the theatres, feeling vaguely disturbed, and talking only about the fantastic performances by the three actors.
Overall, great job by all involved and it was definitely worth the price of the tickets, beer, popcorn, and mnms!
Darren (1599 KP) rated Revenge of the Green Dragons (2014) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
Story: Revenge of the Green Dragons starts as we follow the two young boys that immigrated from China to America and New York City, in a neighbourhood that is run by the Chinese gang known as the Green Dragons.
Recruited at a young age Sonny (Chon) and Steven (Wu) have grown up as part of the Green Dragons under the leadership of Paul (Shum Jr) a businessman that uses the gang to get what he wants. We get to see how the two rise through the ranks in the Green Dragons that even grabs the attention of the FBI.
Thoughts on Revenge of the Green Dragons
Characters – Sonny is the quieter of the two friends that gets taken in by the gang, he is the one that would like a life outside the gang which isn’t as easy as it seems, even when he falls in love. Steven was built for the gang, even after he gets seriously injured in the battle between the gangs, he becomes the one that won’t hesitant to pull the trigger. Paul is the leader of the Green Dragons, a businessman on the outside, that uses his intelligence to make sure he can stay ahead of the game in the gang battle.
Performances – The performances in this movie are fine, nothing is great or bad, we get to see the different ranges of emotions that the two friends must face during their decisions. We don’t have any of the performances that stand out though.
Story – The story follows the gangster storylines we have seen before, two young men or in this case boys get recruited to a rising gang to become big players in their gang in a war against another gang, until they step out of line. This time we follow Chinese immigrants in New York and it shows how they would never hold back on anybody of any age or gender. This does give us a brutality in the story, but in the end it is just more of the same.
Action/Crime – The action is just gun battles and brutality to the people who get in the way of the crimes being committed by the Green Dragons, as we see how they try to stay off the radar while conducting their business
Settings – New York will always be a great choice for settings for crime movies, this is unlike any other showing us how gangs had neighbourhoods and always want more.
Scene of the Movie – Put the gun down, it brings a clever kill.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It offered nothing new to the genre.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime movie, it shows the rise of two in a gang and just where they would go onto be in the gang, but otherwise gives us nothing we haven’t seen before.
Overall: Been Here Seen This.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/revenge-of-the-green-dragons-2014/
Recruited at a young age Sonny (Chon) and Steven (Wu) have grown up as part of the Green Dragons under the leadership of Paul (Shum Jr) a businessman that uses the gang to get what he wants. We get to see how the two rise through the ranks in the Green Dragons that even grabs the attention of the FBI.
Thoughts on Revenge of the Green Dragons
Characters – Sonny is the quieter of the two friends that gets taken in by the gang, he is the one that would like a life outside the gang which isn’t as easy as it seems, even when he falls in love. Steven was built for the gang, even after he gets seriously injured in the battle between the gangs, he becomes the one that won’t hesitant to pull the trigger. Paul is the leader of the Green Dragons, a businessman on the outside, that uses his intelligence to make sure he can stay ahead of the game in the gang battle.
Performances – The performances in this movie are fine, nothing is great or bad, we get to see the different ranges of emotions that the two friends must face during their decisions. We don’t have any of the performances that stand out though.
Story – The story follows the gangster storylines we have seen before, two young men or in this case boys get recruited to a rising gang to become big players in their gang in a war against another gang, until they step out of line. This time we follow Chinese immigrants in New York and it shows how they would never hold back on anybody of any age or gender. This does give us a brutality in the story, but in the end it is just more of the same.
Action/Crime – The action is just gun battles and brutality to the people who get in the way of the crimes being committed by the Green Dragons, as we see how they try to stay off the radar while conducting their business
Settings – New York will always be a great choice for settings for crime movies, this is unlike any other showing us how gangs had neighbourhoods and always want more.
Scene of the Movie – Put the gun down, it brings a clever kill.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It offered nothing new to the genre.
Final Thoughts – This is a by the book crime movie, it shows the rise of two in a gang and just where they would go onto be in the gang, but otherwise gives us nothing we haven’t seen before.
Overall: Been Here Seen This.
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/06/18/revenge-of-the-green-dragons-2014/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Playing for Keeps (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Gerard Butler has stepped out of his 300 uniform and into some soccer
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
cleats. As a former international soccer star, George (Butler) is down on
his luck. He has no job, and he’s living in Virginia, attempting to
reconnect with his estranged son.
The story opens with some backstory about George’s past before quickly
tumbling into his present situation. George’s ex-wife (Jessica Biel) is
getting remarried, and his son Lewis (Noah Lomax) is having a hard time
learning to trust his real father after being separated for so long.
The plot quickly unfolds into a predictable “chick-flick” scenario, where
the main character is floundering and wants to get back what he once had.
His path to redemption comes in the form of coaching his son’s youth
soccer team, while fending off hordes of attractive soccer *moms* who want
to place hands on the well-sculpted Coach Dryer!
This film is incredibly formulaic, and it’s predictable every step of the
way. That said, Butler, Biel, and the rest of t*he cast* do an exceptional
job given what they had to work with. I even have to give some props to
the young actor, Noah Lomax, for giving a noteworthy performance as the
son.
While there were some great chuckles and all-out laughs mixed with a few
touching moments, it’s hard to look past the poor production values of this
film. Many of the scenes were filmed in a free-hand format. The shaking is
not just noticeable, but rampant throughout the film. It’s very
distracting, and downright shoddy film-making.
The directing wasn’t bad, in general, but I think a more seasoned director
would have at least chosen better angles. Case-in-point: many of the
scenes involving the red Ferrari were obviously lit with bright, white
lights reflecting off the surface of the car, giving us a view of grips and
other personnel behind the camera.
Dennis Quaid starts the film with a great role, and delivers a fantastic
performance. Unfortunately, after the jail scene, he’s oddly absent until
the end of the film. His absence was so awkward that it distracted me from
the people who were on the screen. I even asked myself: where did Dennis
Quaid’s character go?
Uma Thurman, playing Quaid’s character’s wife, and Catherine-Zeta Jones,
playing a soccer mom, did a marvelous job (again, despite not having much
to work with).
The Hollywood stars saved this film from rating lower, due to their vast
acting experience and talent, but I can’t recommend the movie as a whole.
Even their performances weren’t enough to keep Playing For Keeps in the
same ballpark as a well-produced film. It’s shoddy movie-making at best.
I recommend you wait to watch this one at home and save your movie theater
budget for another flick, *but if you are into chick-flicks, Playing for
Keeps will not disappoint.*
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
New Vibes, New Dopeness
When I first saw that Sony was playing nice with Disney/Marvel, I almost lost it when I saw that Spider-Man would make an appearance in Captain America: Civil War. Nerd Moment: I’ve always thought that all of the Marvel properties belonged together and this was a step in the right direction. It’s been amazing what’s happened since. In this third reboot since the new century, Spider-Man: Homecoming is the story of a young Peter Parker handling his role as a teenager and a webslinging superhero.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2019 (Updated Aug 28, 2019)
Well, that was a fun surprise!
While my youngest daughter was growing up, I watched a lot of Dora the Explorer on TV. She absolutely loved the show and its characters, its catchphrases and the music all ended up becoming a permanent fixture in my brain for a few years. When news broke of a live action movie, Dora and The Lost City of Gold, accompanied by a trailer and poster, I wasn't really sure what to make of it all. My daughter on the other hand, now aged 14, basically couldn't care less. But, when a succession of fairly positive reviews started coming through, including comparisons to Spy Kids and the classic Indiana Jones movies, I managed to convince her to come with me. And it's pretty fair to say, we both had a great time!
Kicking off with a seriously fun nostalgia trip for anyone who has seen more than their fair share of Dora episodes, the movie pretty much recreates the opening credits from the TV show. The song! Dora's talking backpack and map! And cousin Diego is there too!! But, it turns out Dora and Diego aren't actually just a couple of kids driving recklessly around the jungle in a jeep - they are in fact just using their imagination, driving a homemade cardboard vehicle at the jungle home where Dora lives with her parents.
10 years later and Dora hasn't really changed that much, enthusiastically exploring the jungle and communicating with all of the animals. When her parents (played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria) decide to venture off in search of a lost city of gold, they pack Dora off to the big city where she joins Diego at high school. But Dora and her over friendly, extrovert ways prove to be a big embarrassment for cousin Diego, who has grown up to be a fairly normal, moody teenager, leaving behind his imaginative jungle childhood.
When her parents suddenly go missing one day, Dora enlists the help of Diego and a couple of unwitting fellow students to venture with her into the jungle in order to try and find them and the lost city of gold. What follows is an extremely enjoyable jungle adventure, complete with mysteries, puzzles to solve, and even bad guys too. Isabela Moner, who featured earlier this year as a troubled teenager in the brilliant Instant Family, is perfect as Dora as she brings the older version of the character to life. Her teen co stars all bring something different to the story too, and prove to be a real fun, mixed cast.
Throw in a poo song, an animated Dora scene brought on by breathing in hallucinogenic pollen and a catchy final song and dance number and Dora and the Lost City of Gold is the summer family movie you never knew you needed in your life!
Kicking off with a seriously fun nostalgia trip for anyone who has seen more than their fair share of Dora episodes, the movie pretty much recreates the opening credits from the TV show. The song! Dora's talking backpack and map! And cousin Diego is there too!! But, it turns out Dora and Diego aren't actually just a couple of kids driving recklessly around the jungle in a jeep - they are in fact just using their imagination, driving a homemade cardboard vehicle at the jungle home where Dora lives with her parents.
10 years later and Dora hasn't really changed that much, enthusiastically exploring the jungle and communicating with all of the animals. When her parents (played by Michael Peña and Eva Longoria) decide to venture off in search of a lost city of gold, they pack Dora off to the big city where she joins Diego at high school. But Dora and her over friendly, extrovert ways prove to be a big embarrassment for cousin Diego, who has grown up to be a fairly normal, moody teenager, leaving behind his imaginative jungle childhood.
When her parents suddenly go missing one day, Dora enlists the help of Diego and a couple of unwitting fellow students to venture with her into the jungle in order to try and find them and the lost city of gold. What follows is an extremely enjoyable jungle adventure, complete with mysteries, puzzles to solve, and even bad guys too. Isabela Moner, who featured earlier this year as a troubled teenager in the brilliant Instant Family, is perfect as Dora as she brings the older version of the character to life. Her teen co stars all bring something different to the story too, and prove to be a real fun, mixed cast.
Throw in a poo song, an animated Dora scene brought on by breathing in hallucinogenic pollen and a catchy final song and dance number and Dora and the Lost City of Gold is the summer family movie you never knew you needed in your life!
BookwormLea (3034 KP) rated Down a Dark Hall (2018) in Movies
Jul 26, 2020
Movie? Not great. Concept? Fabulous!
Contains spoilers, click to show
So I wouldn't call this a good horror. Maybe a passable thriller or drama??? Just the usual possession and strange happenings in a secluded school. (If you're looking for a better version of a similar thing, i recommend The Silenced.)
The general plot is that after her father dies when she's young, Katherine slowly becomes the stereotypical angry teen who lets the world know she hates it by letting it burn. She gets made to go to therapy after claiming she sees her father (which she does, because we watched his spirit say goodbye). She is invited to Blackwood. A mysteriously remote mansion home to 6 even more mysterious teachers, including Madame Duret, the headmistress. Kat is joined by 4 other girls of a seemingly lost cause. Duret calls them 'gifted' and 'misunderstood'. They are taught the usual lessons, Maths and English, music and art. And with the exception of Veronica (the literal definition of teenage nightmare) they all seem to excel at one thing in particular. Our lead girl Kat, music, specifically piano. She is taught by Durets son, Jules. Everything seems to be going well, one girl paints like a prodigy, another writes poems that could rock Shakespeares world, Kat does her piano thing rivalling Mozart and the last (who could basically still be in the role of Esther in Orphan) is solving maths problems that could save the world. That is until they start seeing shadows of people who aren't there, voices in their heads and they physically can't stop doing what they are gifted at, to the point where they don't eat or leave their rooms. After finding old files of other girls in similar situations who died, Kat and Veronica try to do something about it. Veronica is taken away and Kat is suddenly a Piano prodigy, almost possessed by the greats themselves. Yeah 'almost'. Because that's exactly what happened. They have been used as vessels for history's greatest men and women, who died too soon. How fantastic is that? If this movie was made better, that is a brilliant plot! But of course everything goes bad, just like their ghosts, the girls start dropping like flies, Poem girl kills herself, Painter literally starves herself, and crazy math girl is on the verge of escaping when she becomes enthralled in the beauty of the flames. Flames caused by Kat when she saves Veronica from being possessed by some weird demon thing who really doesn't get explained. They almost get out. Duret gets possseded and burned by the spirits she conjured. All the teachers die and Jules is crushed when he saves Kat. Of course there has to be surviors so Kat and Veronica get out, where on the brink of death, Kat sees her father again who makes her come back to life after she tries to go with him.
Overall, not a terrible movie, but if it had been made better, would probably be one of my favourite plots ever!
The general plot is that after her father dies when she's young, Katherine slowly becomes the stereotypical angry teen who lets the world know she hates it by letting it burn. She gets made to go to therapy after claiming she sees her father (which she does, because we watched his spirit say goodbye). She is invited to Blackwood. A mysteriously remote mansion home to 6 even more mysterious teachers, including Madame Duret, the headmistress. Kat is joined by 4 other girls of a seemingly lost cause. Duret calls them 'gifted' and 'misunderstood'. They are taught the usual lessons, Maths and English, music and art. And with the exception of Veronica (the literal definition of teenage nightmare) they all seem to excel at one thing in particular. Our lead girl Kat, music, specifically piano. She is taught by Durets son, Jules. Everything seems to be going well, one girl paints like a prodigy, another writes poems that could rock Shakespeares world, Kat does her piano thing rivalling Mozart and the last (who could basically still be in the role of Esther in Orphan) is solving maths problems that could save the world. That is until they start seeing shadows of people who aren't there, voices in their heads and they physically can't stop doing what they are gifted at, to the point where they don't eat or leave their rooms. After finding old files of other girls in similar situations who died, Kat and Veronica try to do something about it. Veronica is taken away and Kat is suddenly a Piano prodigy, almost possessed by the greats themselves. Yeah 'almost'. Because that's exactly what happened. They have been used as vessels for history's greatest men and women, who died too soon. How fantastic is that? If this movie was made better, that is a brilliant plot! But of course everything goes bad, just like their ghosts, the girls start dropping like flies, Poem girl kills herself, Painter literally starves herself, and crazy math girl is on the verge of escaping when she becomes enthralled in the beauty of the flames. Flames caused by Kat when she saves Veronica from being possessed by some weird demon thing who really doesn't get explained. They almost get out. Duret gets possseded and burned by the spirits she conjured. All the teachers die and Jules is crushed when he saves Kat. Of course there has to be surviors so Kat and Veronica get out, where on the brink of death, Kat sees her father again who makes her come back to life after she tries to go with him.
Overall, not a terrible movie, but if it had been made better, would probably be one of my favourite plots ever!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Dec 4, 2018
Not "So Awful It's Good", just Awful
One of the surprise hits of the summer of 2018 was the "so bad it's good" mega-shark movie THE MEG, starring the impediment of modern-day machismo, Jason Statham. So, when I saw that it was streaming on DirecTV, I thought I'd melt into the couch with a blanket and a beverage of my choice and relish in the over-the-top awfulness that is THE MEG.
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...I am here to report that THE MEG is awful, just not over-the-top "so bad it's good" awful. It's just awful - and that is an awful disappointment.
I can see the pitch now - THE MEG is "Jaws, but bigger, it's Mega-Jaws! What were the best parts of Jaws? Well, we're gonna do that again, just more!" But what these filmmakers failed to realize is that the best part of Jaws isn't the shark attacking, it's the interaction of the 3 men who go off in search of the shark.
And...the folks that are "fish-fodder" for this big shark just aren't interesting enough. The filmmakers give Jason Statham a PTSD backstory that is forgotten about 2 minutes into the film. His nemesis/former crewmate (a forgettable Robert Taylor) hates Statham's character for about 5 minutes...the stalwart captain is...well stalwart and he is played by "I always melt into the background" Cliff Curtis. Rubie Rose is on-board as the "young genius" who's good looks and youth makes everyone underestimate her - even after she proves over and over again that she is young and a GENIUS. And then, there's good ol' Rain Wilson (Dwight from THE OFFICE) who's the megalomaniacal mega-billionaire who wants to capture (not kill) The Meg for profit.
The problem with all these characters (and others like Masi Oka's homesick scientist) is that they are one-note but not SO one note that they are over-the-top caricatures. They're just boring and forgettable.
As for the shark killings (the real reason that The Meg is intriguing), they are just as boring and forgettable as the characters. Most of them are homages to kills ni the Jaws series of films, so there is some fun in that, but none of them are truly unique and original or over-the-top enough.
The blame, I think, probably goes to "the suits" at Warner Brothers or perhaps Gravity Pictures. There are 3 writers on this, so clearly the script kept getting sent back to the drawing board - and 19(!) producers attached. I heard that Eli Roth was attached at one point and he wanted to make it EXTREMELY graphic and bloody - but "the suits" wanted something they could market to a broader audience, so let him go and hired the always mediocre Jon Turtletaub (LAST VEGAS, THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICE) to Direct and mediocrity reigns all over.
If you want a "so bad it's good" mega-shark film and check out DEEP BLUE SEA (the Samuel L. Jackson speech in this film is worth the price of admission). And when you see THE MEG on whatever streaming platform you prefer and are prepared to watch it "for a laugh", save yourself the bother (and the boredom) and stream something else.
Letter Grade: C (it is competently made)
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
