Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Informer (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Joel Kinnaman plays the good bad guy well, the inner battle his character has shows on his face throughout. Once Pete gets to prison and his story becomes one of survival I thought he was even better. Without such a good performance behind Pete I don't think this film would have held together at all.
When Common started appearing in things I was a little dubious but as time has gone on he's really developed and found himself the right little niche. As Grens he shows he's confident with what he's given and I can't wait to see his next role. (As it happens I didn't have to wait long as he was in The Kitchen and I had no idea.)
Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen are both generally solid actors to see on a movie poster but in this instance I found their characters to be frustrating and a little wooden. Pike is potentially part tree as I notice this in a few of her roles but it's usually perfectly suited, in this though, Wilcox's two different personas felt too different to be believable. Owen as her boss was fine but in a film with so many aggressive and combative characters it was just too much.
It was paced quite well and the only reason I felt distracted at times was because of fellow cinemagoers. We were given a nice balance of action broken up by character pieces and there weren't any times that felt unnecessary or over the top. But then we get to the end of the film. I'd put money on the ending of that film being changed to cut the length and keep it under 2 hours. There was a perfect place to end the film, it would have left you with a "well what happened next" moment but I think that would have been preferable to what we got. We still get that "what's next" but it's much more anticlimactic and meant my last feeling wasn't one of anticipation but confusion. It took me a while to write up some note for this because I was pondering that ending, I'm certain that has changed the score this gets.
Read the review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-informer-movie-review.html
When Common started appearing in things I was a little dubious but as time has gone on he's really developed and found himself the right little niche. As Grens he shows he's confident with what he's given and I can't wait to see his next role. (As it happens I didn't have to wait long as he was in The Kitchen and I had no idea.)
Rosamund Pike and Clive Owen are both generally solid actors to see on a movie poster but in this instance I found their characters to be frustrating and a little wooden. Pike is potentially part tree as I notice this in a few of her roles but it's usually perfectly suited, in this though, Wilcox's two different personas felt too different to be believable. Owen as her boss was fine but in a film with so many aggressive and combative characters it was just too much.
It was paced quite well and the only reason I felt distracted at times was because of fellow cinemagoers. We were given a nice balance of action broken up by character pieces and there weren't any times that felt unnecessary or over the top. But then we get to the end of the film. I'd put money on the ending of that film being changed to cut the length and keep it under 2 hours. There was a perfect place to end the film, it would have left you with a "well what happened next" moment but I think that would have been preferable to what we got. We still get that "what's next" but it's much more anticlimactic and meant my last feeling wasn't one of anticipation but confusion. It took me a while to write up some note for this because I was pondering that ending, I'm certain that has changed the score this gets.
Read the review extras here: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-informer-movie-review.html
Darren (1599 KP) rated Mongolian Death Worm (2010) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
Characters – Daniel is a treasure hunter searching for the burial grounds of Genghis Khan but has made his own enemies in the land but also knows how to handle himself, he isn’t the kindest of people always doing things for money over the right reasons, Alicia is a doctor that has been helping the locals of Mongolia with a virus outbreak and she is willing to die to save these people. Timur is the sheriff that is one of the few people that enjoys the company of Daniel and understands that he is harmless at heart.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
Performance – Sean Patrick Flanery does seem to have fallen from the graces where he was about to make it to the big time but he is the star of this show. Victoria Pratt is fine in the supporting role with the brains and beauty needed for the film and George Cheung gives us the laughs when needed.
Story – The story does mix myth with legend when it comes to dealing with new inhabitants to a land that must face the idea that a myth isn’t just a myth and must work together to defeat a creature in this case a Mongolian Death Worm. This is an easy to watch story as it is mostly a group of people needing to battle an unknown enemy before they take over the local area.
Action/Horror – The action is mostly chases through the film which works when it comes to the enemies the people are facing with the horror side of the movie all coming from the creature feature idea which is always a lot of fun to watch.
Settings – The film is set in Mongolia but this looks like it could be anywhere in the USA or anywhere that has dirt roads.
Special Effects – The effects are better than I was expecting but still within the budget of a TV movie.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The film could have been filmed in any location it wouldn’t have made a difference.
Final Thoughts – This is a simple creature feature that is a lot better than what I was expecting without being one of the best creature features you will see, I do think the fact it isn’t laughably bad does hinder it though.
Overall: Solid creature feature.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Scary Stories to tell in the dark is a film based on a series of children’s books famed for its terrifying art work. The film tells of what happens when a group of children discover the story book of Sarah Bellows, the town’s urban legend who is supposed to have poisoned and killed the children who heard her stories.
Scary Stories is one of those films that takes a mix of different horror elements, put’s them through a blender and sees what comes out; it is part Slasher, as a number of the children get attacked and killed in a variety of different ways, part J-Horror as the children have to find out what it will take to stop Sarah (in a similar style to the Ring or The Grudge), and part monster movie as a variety of creatures are set out after the children.
The one thing Scary Stories isn’t is a children’s film, the monsters are heavily based upon the art work from the original books and, after a slow beginning the tension and atmosphere are ramped up. There are a few jump scares but the film does not rely solely on these and the ones there are, are well crafted, you know something is going to happen but not when. Some of the children do died, although not in bloody ways.
For a film based on a series of stories ‘Scary Stories to tell in the dark’ doesn’t quite become an anthology movie which is a bit surprising, each monster has its own back story however, these back stories quickly become secondary as the hunt for the truth about Sarah takes over.
I think, at its heart, Scary Stories is mostly a classic ghost story, the book is a classic cursed item like the video tape in the ring or the mirror in mirror mirror (the horror film not the Disney one) which is fuelled by Sarah’s anger at the injustices she suffered when she was alive and which can be negated when something is put right. Of course anyone who has seen more than a few horror movies knows that a bad spirit can’t be kept down for long and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark does leave the way open for a sequel.
Scary Stories is one of those films that takes a mix of different horror elements, put’s them through a blender and sees what comes out; it is part Slasher, as a number of the children get attacked and killed in a variety of different ways, part J-Horror as the children have to find out what it will take to stop Sarah (in a similar style to the Ring or The Grudge), and part monster movie as a variety of creatures are set out after the children.
The one thing Scary Stories isn’t is a children’s film, the monsters are heavily based upon the art work from the original books and, after a slow beginning the tension and atmosphere are ramped up. There are a few jump scares but the film does not rely solely on these and the ones there are, are well crafted, you know something is going to happen but not when. Some of the children do died, although not in bloody ways.
For a film based on a series of stories ‘Scary Stories to tell in the dark’ doesn’t quite become an anthology movie which is a bit surprising, each monster has its own back story however, these back stories quickly become secondary as the hunt for the truth about Sarah takes over.
I think, at its heart, Scary Stories is mostly a classic ghost story, the book is a classic cursed item like the video tape in the ring or the mirror in mirror mirror (the horror film not the Disney one) which is fuelled by Sarah’s anger at the injustices she suffered when she was alive and which can be negated when something is put right. Of course anyone who has seen more than a few horror movies knows that a bad spirit can’t be kept down for long and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark does leave the way open for a sequel.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Jul 27, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Man, I expected this to be absolute gutter trash based on some of the reviews I've seen here and there, but honestly, found this to be a pretty passable dumb comic book origin story.
The cast are mostly good (minus a couple of generic jumped-up-alpha-male-arseholes). Vin Diesel just being Vin Diesel (which I used to hate but these days kind of love-hate), Guy Pearce playing a typically shady villain, Eiza González representing the badass female quota nicely, and Lamorne Morris playing the sometimes amusing comic relief. They all gel well for the most part.
It also doesn't take itself to seriously - I was ready to hate Bloodshot within the first ten minutes due to some really on the nose dumbfuckery to do with Toby Kebbell's character, but later on, the movie references said scene and pokes fun at it, thankfully.
There's one particular great action set piece during the first third of the film (the one that made up a fair amount of the trailer) which earns Bloodshot more points than it otherwise would have, and the semi-Groundhog Day plot keeps the movie interesting for the most part.
However, and it's a big however, although Bloodshot is fairly good for a fair portion of the runtime, it absolutely shits the bed in the final third.
Opting for a big CGI blowout (of course), the big final sequence just looks horrible.
The character models used in the fight sequences reminded me of Neo from The Matrix Reloaded, and that looked bad 17 years ago!
It's a loud, ugly mess that unfortunately de-rails any good that came before.
It also doesn't make a lick of sense, but WHO CARES, EXPLOSIONS AND CGI VIN DIESEL, WOOOOAHHH. It sucks.
I get the feeling that the ending (after the shitty fight scene) was supposed to be deep and left open to interpretation, but it just felt thrown on and confusing, and I also, I didn't really care by this point.
Ultimately, I would like to see Bloodshot get a sequel. This first outing is truly an origin film, and it would be interesting to see how further entries could flesh out the story, and borrow more from the comics.
I just hope this crappy Coronavirus pandemic is taken into account by the suits when looking at the poor box office.
The cast are mostly good (minus a couple of generic jumped-up-alpha-male-arseholes). Vin Diesel just being Vin Diesel (which I used to hate but these days kind of love-hate), Guy Pearce playing a typically shady villain, Eiza González representing the badass female quota nicely, and Lamorne Morris playing the sometimes amusing comic relief. They all gel well for the most part.
It also doesn't take itself to seriously - I was ready to hate Bloodshot within the first ten minutes due to some really on the nose dumbfuckery to do with Toby Kebbell's character, but later on, the movie references said scene and pokes fun at it, thankfully.
There's one particular great action set piece during the first third of the film (the one that made up a fair amount of the trailer) which earns Bloodshot more points than it otherwise would have, and the semi-Groundhog Day plot keeps the movie interesting for the most part.
However, and it's a big however, although Bloodshot is fairly good for a fair portion of the runtime, it absolutely shits the bed in the final third.
Opting for a big CGI blowout (of course), the big final sequence just looks horrible.
The character models used in the fight sequences reminded me of Neo from The Matrix Reloaded, and that looked bad 17 years ago!
It's a loud, ugly mess that unfortunately de-rails any good that came before.
It also doesn't make a lick of sense, but WHO CARES, EXPLOSIONS AND CGI VIN DIESEL, WOOOOAHHH. It sucks.
I get the feeling that the ending (after the shitty fight scene) was supposed to be deep and left open to interpretation, but it just felt thrown on and confusing, and I also, I didn't really care by this point.
Ultimately, I would like to see Bloodshot get a sequel. This first outing is truly an origin film, and it would be interesting to see how further entries could flesh out the story, and borrow more from the comics.
I just hope this crappy Coronavirus pandemic is taken into account by the suits when looking at the poor box office.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Robo Vampire (1988) in Movies
Aug 11, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Drug baron Mr Young is fed up with Narcotics agent Tom Wilde interfering with his plans so he hires a Taoist monk to train a vampire to kill him. After his death Tom is rebuilt as an Android Robot and sent on a mission to help rescue a captured officer.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Force/Cable: Messiah War in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Still continuing on my journey, to consume all of the X-FORCE (Vol. 3) stories. Next up: X-FORCE/CABLE: MESSIAH WAR.
Scanning the existing reviews, the general opinion seems to be that this is the way to do a crossover. And having finished it today, I am drawn to the same conclusion as well. From the writing to the art to the overall story progression, everything about this story is a win!
This was my second time reading this story, the first time was when the issues first came in 2008. I liked it first time round, but I felt it made a lot more sense during the second read.
Only thing that still doesn't make sense is Hope and the pseudo-prophetic vision Bishop has in regard to her. All the build-up as far as her character leads one to expect bigger things ahead, but nothing like ever occurs in the post-MESSIAH WAR Hope's life. It doesn't detract from the story, nor do I consider it a true Spoiler, just something I wanted to share. As always I welcome comments, good and bad.
The art was definitely better than the last arc of X-FORCE (Vol. 2: OLD GHOSTS). I found the art styles of both Clayton Crain and Ariel Olivetti, as well as Jamie McKelvie and Mike Choi, suited to the story's dystopian setting. I was especially pleased to see Laura Kinney (X-23) drawn like a 17-year-old girl rather than a 17-year-old with breast implants (I'm looking at you, Mike Choi! #disappointment)!
Despite running through two different titles, CABLE and X-FORCE, the writers - Duane Swierczynski (who is one of my favorite of the modern noir writers) and Christopher Yost/Craig Kyle (I've already spoken highly of their talent in the other X-FORCE reviews I've submitted) - managed to weave together a tapestry both epic as well as grand in its overall finish! Easiest way to sum it up? It was like experiencing a top notch action and suspense-driven science fiction movie!
One of the best things about this crossover is it allows for the character of Cable to show a different side. He genuinely cares about Hope, not just because of her being the "mutant messiah". No, I took it is as a sort of paternal instinct, regarding as a surrogate daughter. I quite liked it. Solid character development!
I like to close my reviews thus: I liked it, but that doesn't mean you will. Give it a shot, and maybe you, too, can offer forth a review (good, bad, or otherwise). Cheers..
Scanning the existing reviews, the general opinion seems to be that this is the way to do a crossover. And having finished it today, I am drawn to the same conclusion as well. From the writing to the art to the overall story progression, everything about this story is a win!
This was my second time reading this story, the first time was when the issues first came in 2008. I liked it first time round, but I felt it made a lot more sense during the second read.
Only thing that still doesn't make sense is Hope and the pseudo-prophetic vision Bishop has in regard to her. All the build-up as far as her character leads one to expect bigger things ahead, but nothing like ever occurs in the post-MESSIAH WAR Hope's life. It doesn't detract from the story, nor do I consider it a true Spoiler, just something I wanted to share. As always I welcome comments, good and bad.
The art was definitely better than the last arc of X-FORCE (Vol. 2: OLD GHOSTS). I found the art styles of both Clayton Crain and Ariel Olivetti, as well as Jamie McKelvie and Mike Choi, suited to the story's dystopian setting. I was especially pleased to see Laura Kinney (X-23) drawn like a 17-year-old girl rather than a 17-year-old with breast implants (I'm looking at you, Mike Choi! #disappointment)!
Despite running through two different titles, CABLE and X-FORCE, the writers - Duane Swierczynski (who is one of my favorite of the modern noir writers) and Christopher Yost/Craig Kyle (I've already spoken highly of their talent in the other X-FORCE reviews I've submitted) - managed to weave together a tapestry both epic as well as grand in its overall finish! Easiest way to sum it up? It was like experiencing a top notch action and suspense-driven science fiction movie!
One of the best things about this crossover is it allows for the character of Cable to show a different side. He genuinely cares about Hope, not just because of her being the "mutant messiah". No, I took it is as a sort of paternal instinct, regarding as a surrogate daughter. I quite liked it. Solid character development!
I like to close my reviews thus: I liked it, but that doesn't mean you will. Give it a shot, and maybe you, too, can offer forth a review (good, bad, or otherwise). Cheers..
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Aug 19, 2019 (Updated Oct 25, 2019)
A dammmnnn shame
Contains spoilers, click to show
Oh boy.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
I'm going to get straight to the main flaw with this one - I'm not sure how someone can really mess up Apocalypse so bad - he is a great X-Men villain. I remember watching the cartoon as a kid, being enamoured whenever Apocalypse turned up. The first mutant, practically a god, terrifying voice etc.
The Age of Apocalypse story arc is also a great comic - one where we see just how dangerous Apocalypse can be.
But instead of this classic villain, we get, well whatever the hell this is.
Oscar Isaac is give or take in other films I've seen him in, he just sort of exists to me, but I'm sure he did the best he could with what he was given.
But the character we're presented with in X-Men: Apocalypse is a mutant that isn't particularly terrifying, whose motives aren't very clear, and who speaks in a goddam normal human voice for the entire movie.
He looks, ok I guess, a little Ivan Ooze-ish at times, and there is a (very) brief moment where his voice goes all demonic and his eyes turn white, which offers a tiny glimpse of what could have been.
Elsewhere, the still awesome Michael Fassbender is relegated to a sidekick character, new cast members such as Psylocke, Angel, and Storm are there just to strike poses to edgy rock music, and Quicksilver gets a re hash of his great scene from DOFP that just doesn't quite hit the mark this time round.
The introduction of Sophie Turner as Jean Grey is fine, and it's nice to see a young Cyclops, Nightcrawler etc, but they're not given too much to do. It all just feels like one big wasted opportunity.
The film would have been much better and ballsier had it ended with Apocalypse winning, and ushering a full on Age of Apocalypse scenario for a sequel, but instead, he is dispatched with not too much trouble, as the writers poorly shoehorn in a segue for Dark Phoenix (for the second time in this franchise)
It's not all bad, there are times where I felt I was watching the cartoon come to life. The opening scene in ancient Egypt was pretty fun, and I actually quite enjoyed the brief Wolverine scene - those few minutes were way more entertaining to me than the entirety of X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Overall though, this one had me wanting the rights to return to Marvel Studios.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html