Search
Search results
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Overlord (2018) in Movies
Dec 1, 2019
Saving Private Ryan meets Resident Evil!
Had heard mixed reviews on this, but saw it for 4 bucks for Black Friday so I figured I couldn't lose!
Basically, to prevent the Allied forces being massacred on D-Day, US troops are ordered to detonate a Nazi communication tower. A small band of brothers actually makes it to the ground and finds a small French town equipped with a cute French girl and her brother. When a Nazi commander comes calling for more than an interrogation, the surviving troops must decide whether t reveal themselves to save her.
I actually really got into this movie and thought the action mixed with horror was pretty cool. Some of the fight/shootout sequences were cleverly done along with some of the secrets and experiments the Nazis are hiding deep within their stronghold. There are tough decisions and ultimate sacrifices to be made and the film threads the needle between genres successfully. I could see how if you were thinking this was going to be a full out horror film you would be disappointed; however, I had kind of heard a little about it ahead of time so my expectations were redirected.
The SFX held well throughout and didn't stick out as being bad or taking you out of the action. When some of the more extreme elements are revealed, I went along with it like I was watching my son play one of his weird FPS games. A lot of the film did feel like I was watching Call of Duty or something like that. Boy do I wish I could have those yeas of my life watching my son play that crap back!
Colossally entertaining!
Basically, to prevent the Allied forces being massacred on D-Day, US troops are ordered to detonate a Nazi communication tower. A small band of brothers actually makes it to the ground and finds a small French town equipped with a cute French girl and her brother. When a Nazi commander comes calling for more than an interrogation, the surviving troops must decide whether t reveal themselves to save her.
I actually really got into this movie and thought the action mixed with horror was pretty cool. Some of the fight/shootout sequences were cleverly done along with some of the secrets and experiments the Nazis are hiding deep within their stronghold. There are tough decisions and ultimate sacrifices to be made and the film threads the needle between genres successfully. I could see how if you were thinking this was going to be a full out horror film you would be disappointed; however, I had kind of heard a little about it ahead of time so my expectations were redirected.
The SFX held well throughout and didn't stick out as being bad or taking you out of the action. When some of the more extreme elements are revealed, I went along with it like I was watching my son play one of his weird FPS games. A lot of the film did feel like I was watching Call of Duty or something like that. Boy do I wish I could have those yeas of my life watching my son play that crap back!
Colossally entertaining!
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Great Gatsby in Books
Mar 20, 2020
I'm so disappointed with this book. I know how many people love it and that it's a classic and something almost everyone's read. I was really hoping it would hold up. Almost everyone I asked said they really liked it and they thought I would enjoy it too. I didn't.
Overall, I didn't really get the point of Nick's character. Or Jordan for that matter. It felt like they were just extras and useless. Gatsby is desperate and it comes across so obviously - is that on purpose? Tom is obviously the worst character - he's misogynistic and racist and a hypocrite. And then Daisy. She's just insecure and probably lonely (I'd be really surprised if she wasn't) and I just found her to be so annoying. She heard all these things about Jay and then automatically decided, "well, my sucky husband is alright. I guess I'll stay with him."
I feel like Nick was just supposed to be some outside character, more of a narrator, but if that's what Fitzgerald wanted, why not just narrate? Why have a whole character who is basically useless but being equal parts annoyed and fascinated by his mysterious neighbor? It just didn't really make any sense. Jordan also felt useless. She was there to stir the pot, let Nick in on the gossip, be his kind-of-friend, kind-of-love-interest but not really.
Apparently, I either missed the whole point of the book or it's really that bad and we've all been brainwashed. I'm going to go with the latter, but it very well could be the former. Don't discount my ability to have things go over my head. I guess I should watch the movie now and see what I think. Leonardo DiCaprio, here I come!
Overall, I didn't really get the point of Nick's character. Or Jordan for that matter. It felt like they were just extras and useless. Gatsby is desperate and it comes across so obviously - is that on purpose? Tom is obviously the worst character - he's misogynistic and racist and a hypocrite. And then Daisy. She's just insecure and probably lonely (I'd be really surprised if she wasn't) and I just found her to be so annoying. She heard all these things about Jay and then automatically decided, "well, my sucky husband is alright. I guess I'll stay with him."
I feel like Nick was just supposed to be some outside character, more of a narrator, but if that's what Fitzgerald wanted, why not just narrate? Why have a whole character who is basically useless but being equal parts annoyed and fascinated by his mysterious neighbor? It just didn't really make any sense. Jordan also felt useless. She was there to stir the pot, let Nick in on the gossip, be his kind-of-friend, kind-of-love-interest but not really.
Apparently, I either missed the whole point of the book or it's really that bad and we've all been brainwashed. I'm going to go with the latter, but it very well could be the former. Don't discount my ability to have things go over my head. I guess I should watch the movie now and see what I think. Leonardo DiCaprio, here I come!
A Gentleman's Bedside Book: Entertainment for the Last Fifteen Minutes of the Day
Book
Have you ever found that once you are between the sheets Madame Bovary is too heavy, magazines are...
101 Gangster Movies: You Must See Before You Die
Book
From the early Prohibition-era classics of Mervyn LeRoy and William A. Wellman to the mean streets...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Old Guard (2020) in Movies
Jul 22, 2020
Theron makes this film watchable
In this time, where new cinematic experiences are limited to home viewing, it is fun to take a break from watching (or re-watching) classic films to check out a new movie.
And this one, THE OLD GUARD, is a fun enough and well worth checking out.
Starring Charlize Theron and based on a limited-run comics series from 2017, THE OLD GUARD tells the tale of a group if immortals (beings who cannot die) who bond together to serve the greater good of humanity.
While the plot is rather "by-the-book": young, hip, ego-maniacal mega-industrialist uses nefarious methods to capture the immortals to use for his own (money making) purposes, the star power of Theron holds this piece together in interesting ways.
Make no mistake - this is Theron's film (as the oldest of the immortals) and she is terrific. She demands attention anytime she is on the screen and when she shares the scene with strong actors like Chewitel Ejiofor(12 YEARS A SLAVE) and young Kiki Lane (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK), it makes for an interesting film, indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of the Immortals (Luca Marinelli, Marwan Kenzari and - especially - Matthias Schoenaerts) are rather bland and the "big bad" (played by Dudley Dursley himself, Harry Melling) and his generic henchmen just aren't interesting enough.
The Direction, by Gina-Prince Bythewood, and the fight choreography is professional, but nothing special, which adds to the "meh" I was feeling whenever Theron was not on the screen.
But there is enough going right in this film that in this day where there is a dearth of new entertainment available, THE OLD GUARD fills the void quite well.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And this one, THE OLD GUARD, is a fun enough and well worth checking out.
Starring Charlize Theron and based on a limited-run comics series from 2017, THE OLD GUARD tells the tale of a group if immortals (beings who cannot die) who bond together to serve the greater good of humanity.
While the plot is rather "by-the-book": young, hip, ego-maniacal mega-industrialist uses nefarious methods to capture the immortals to use for his own (money making) purposes, the star power of Theron holds this piece together in interesting ways.
Make no mistake - this is Theron's film (as the oldest of the immortals) and she is terrific. She demands attention anytime she is on the screen and when she shares the scene with strong actors like Chewitel Ejiofor(12 YEARS A SLAVE) and young Kiki Lane (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK), it makes for an interesting film, indeed. Unfortunately, the rest of the Immortals (Luca Marinelli, Marwan Kenzari and - especially - Matthias Schoenaerts) are rather bland and the "big bad" (played by Dudley Dursley himself, Harry Melling) and his generic henchmen just aren't interesting enough.
The Direction, by Gina-Prince Bythewood, and the fight choreography is professional, but nothing special, which adds to the "meh" I was feeling whenever Theron was not on the screen.
But there is enough going right in this film that in this day where there is a dearth of new entertainment available, THE OLD GUARD fills the void quite well.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Thor: Ragnarok (2017) in Movies
Mar 5, 2021
I've got a lot a love for the first Thor movie, but like many others, the second one is probably my least favourite of the whole franchise. So, when one of the mightiest Avengers threatens to become stale, what is the solution? Taika fucking Waititi is the solution.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.
One of my favourite working directors helming an MCU film is exciting indeed, and manages to deliver a film that injects new life into the Thor series, manages to fit in with other chapters of the franchise without feeling too alien, but still has liberal splashings of Waititi's trademark wit throughout.
The comedy in this entry is thick and fast, but everything lands just right. It's fair to say that it's taken a leaf out the Guardians of the Galaxy playbook, but manages to come across smoother and feel more refined in it's humour than Vol. 2.
Chris Hemsworth, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Mark Ruffalo and Idris Elba are back and as good as ever with MCU newcomers Cate Blanchett, carving a memorable figure as this movies big bad Hela (who I really hope we see again at somepoint), Tessa Thompson as the badass Valkyrie, a wonderful Jeff Goldblum as secondary villain Grandmaster (another that I hope we see again), and Karl Urban as The Executioner. It's a well put together cast.
It's packed full of comic shit too, with references to Man Thing, Beta Ray Bill, and Bi Beast, a tie in appearance from Doctor Strange, the first appearance of Surtur, and Hulk rampaging through Asgard. It has relentlessly entertaining set pieces and an 80s synth style soundtrack that tops everything wonderfully.
Not much to complain about here - easily the best of the Thor trilogy and a solid entry into the wider MCU.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Leprechaun in the Hood (2000) in Movies
Nov 24, 2020
"Holy shit, you midget Midas motherfucker!" - Mack Daddy
Let us get straight to it. Leprechaun in the Hood is so goddam cheap. It's painfully obvious that the entire film was made on a low budget, and shot on a limited movie set (pretty sure one scene is shot in a props cupboard) and this blights what could have been one of the better entries in the Leprechaun series. I say this because this sequel is horrendously entertaining, despite how poor the production values are - a true champion of the so-bad-it's-good mantra.
The big positives here are the lead characters. Postmaster P., Butch, and (to a lesser extent) Stray Bullet, are three amateur rapper protagonists who you can get behind. They're actually kind of likable, which is a genuine rarity in this franchise. Warwick Davis' Lep seems to actually have less screen time than usual, but it's not even noticable because of these characters. Ice-T also stars as ex-pimp-turned-music-mogul Mack Daddy, and he's a welcome addition to the Leprechaun lore. Speaking of lore, this is another sequel that yet again pays no notice to the other films, and just does its own thing. It has a vaguely resembelent set up to Leprechaun 3 but other than that, a big Fuck You to any sort of narrative consistency, which honestly isn't much of an issue at this point.
Leprechaun in the Hood is so so silly, and as mentioned, shits the bed on the production side of things, but it's occasionally funny, occasionally gory, and entertaining to a degree.
That full rap number that Lep does at the end is fucking awful though, and no one is going to change my mind.
Let us get straight to it. Leprechaun in the Hood is so goddam cheap. It's painfully obvious that the entire film was made on a low budget, and shot on a limited movie set (pretty sure one scene is shot in a props cupboard) and this blights what could have been one of the better entries in the Leprechaun series. I say this because this sequel is horrendously entertaining, despite how poor the production values are - a true champion of the so-bad-it's-good mantra.
The big positives here are the lead characters. Postmaster P., Butch, and (to a lesser extent) Stray Bullet, are three amateur rapper protagonists who you can get behind. They're actually kind of likable, which is a genuine rarity in this franchise. Warwick Davis' Lep seems to actually have less screen time than usual, but it's not even noticable because of these characters. Ice-T also stars as ex-pimp-turned-music-mogul Mack Daddy, and he's a welcome addition to the Leprechaun lore. Speaking of lore, this is another sequel that yet again pays no notice to the other films, and just does its own thing. It has a vaguely resembelent set up to Leprechaun 3 but other than that, a big Fuck You to any sort of narrative consistency, which honestly isn't much of an issue at this point.
Leprechaun in the Hood is so so silly, and as mentioned, shits the bed on the production side of things, but it's occasionally funny, occasionally gory, and entertaining to a degree.
That full rap number that Lep does at the end is fucking awful though, and no one is going to change my mind.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Avatar (2009) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
"𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬."
The story has been criticized up and down for being about as basic as can be, as well as being somewhat subtractive of the real life parallel this is generally aiming for - and I agree wholeheartedly. But let's be honest here, nobody goes into this for its merits as a piece of storytelling - which it isn't even necessarily bad at on the whole - it just rushes into and through everything too quickly (that goes double for a movie of this length). No, this is front-to-back pure, rich spectacle. Movies since have tried to emulate it but none have even come close to reaching the grandiose scope, immaculate attention to detail, and luxurious world-building. There's so much on the screen all at once you could almost get lost, as if you were right there in this massive, vibrant splashpad of late 2000s blockbuster merriment. And those last thirty minutes of rock-solid PG-13 fantasy violence just take the cake, holy *shit* they rule (remember when these used to end in half-hour long epic battle sequences where you could actually see and even care about what was going on?). Mechs fighting giant fantastical animals, soldiers getting pincushioned left and right with massive arrows, huge flying creatures shot-putting military aircrafts into the sides of cliffs... had a smile the size of Texas across my face the whole time - that's as good as those things get. Plus this is another entry into my Joel-David-Moore-is-underrated collection because he outacts the entire cast of A-listers here. As beautiful as the day it came out, but perhaps in a different way reflexively.
The story has been criticized up and down for being about as basic as can be, as well as being somewhat subtractive of the real life parallel this is generally aiming for - and I agree wholeheartedly. But let's be honest here, nobody goes into this for its merits as a piece of storytelling - which it isn't even necessarily bad at on the whole - it just rushes into and through everything too quickly (that goes double for a movie of this length). No, this is front-to-back pure, rich spectacle. Movies since have tried to emulate it but none have even come close to reaching the grandiose scope, immaculate attention to detail, and luxurious world-building. There's so much on the screen all at once you could almost get lost, as if you were right there in this massive, vibrant splashpad of late 2000s blockbuster merriment. And those last thirty minutes of rock-solid PG-13 fantasy violence just take the cake, holy *shit* they rule (remember when these used to end in half-hour long epic battle sequences where you could actually see and even care about what was going on?). Mechs fighting giant fantastical animals, soldiers getting pincushioned left and right with massive arrows, huge flying creatures shot-putting military aircrafts into the sides of cliffs... had a smile the size of Texas across my face the whole time - that's as good as those things get. Plus this is another entry into my Joel-David-Moore-is-underrated collection because he outacts the entire cast of A-listers here. As beautiful as the day it came out, but perhaps in a different way reflexively.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning (1985) in Movies
Nov 29, 2020
Part V of the Friday the 13th franchise is an absolute blast, and no one can tell me otherwise. Is it silly? Definitely. Does it go overboard with its goofy characters a little too often? Damn right it does (pretty sure someone gets called "a dildo" at one point) Are there better Friday films out there? Yes sir, but none of this stops the fact that Part V is a decent, entertaining, smack bang middle of the 80s slasher.
The killer this time around isn't Jason Voorhees, even if it is only by name, and this "mystery" surrounding the killers identity achieves two things - 1. It adds a whodunnit element to the series, otherwise only ever seen in the original and 2. It keeps the killer offscreen for most of the runtime, saving budget costs by not showing much in terms of kills (although that belt against the tree death is a doozy). This results in a less gory sequel, especially after the more brutal Part IV, but it's not a big issue. The whole thing almost feels like an R-Rated episode of Scooby-Doo. The reveal of the killer is definitely weak though. Not enough set up means and underwhelming payoff.
There are soooooooo many characters in this. I swear there are still new ones being introduced up until the last 20 minutes, and they're all just body count fodder for "Jason". Not necessarily a bad thing, pretty standard practice by now. I did like little Reckless Reggie. That dude is awesome. Way more awesome than Tommy Jarvis, who is just a whiny bitch for the whole runtime. Thankfully Thom Mathews is just around the corner.
It's not the best Friday movie, but far from being the worst. As far as 80s slashers go, it's damn good time.
The killer this time around isn't Jason Voorhees, even if it is only by name, and this "mystery" surrounding the killers identity achieves two things - 1. It adds a whodunnit element to the series, otherwise only ever seen in the original and 2. It keeps the killer offscreen for most of the runtime, saving budget costs by not showing much in terms of kills (although that belt against the tree death is a doozy). This results in a less gory sequel, especially after the more brutal Part IV, but it's not a big issue. The whole thing almost feels like an R-Rated episode of Scooby-Doo. The reveal of the killer is definitely weak though. Not enough set up means and underwhelming payoff.
There are soooooooo many characters in this. I swear there are still new ones being introduced up until the last 20 minutes, and they're all just body count fodder for "Jason". Not necessarily a bad thing, pretty standard practice by now. I did like little Reckless Reggie. That dude is awesome. Way more awesome than Tommy Jarvis, who is just a whiny bitch for the whole runtime. Thankfully Thom Mathews is just around the corner.
It's not the best Friday movie, but far from being the worst. As far as 80s slashers go, it's damn good time.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2020 (Updated Oct 10, 2020)
RIP - Sid Haig
I... wanted to like this so badly, it physically hurts me to write this. I revere the first two films in this trilogy and thought it ended contently on the previous one - though I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to seeing more. However, the way this was practically forced out of Zombie when he wanted to make another film instead (after over a decade of swearing off interest in another sequel already) plus the whole thing being plagued with a stifled budget and Sig Haig's failing health on top of that just makes it a sad affair in more ways than one. It starts off okay, begins with a substantial amount of 'martyred killer' psychobabble ("Justice is a fucking knife", "All hail the man behind the grease paint!") and hallmark Zombie sadism, albeit significantly toned down this time around much to its detriment. I still applaud Zombie in his effort to make every entry into this canon a different experience, but there's nothing going on here - it's essentially a diet retread of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭'𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 meets a boring hangout movie that barely even attempts to delve into the tantalizing Manson-era publicized serial killer culture it teases in its opening scenes. Looks like cheap DTV shit too, especially that criminal CGI blood. Just so disappointingly cursory in its storytelling, obviously this would have suffered without Haig anyway but the Richard Brake replacement character stands around and does jack shit. Moon-Zombie and Moseley are intact but to what effect? Their characters come out worse off than they were 15 years ago. Has enough alright moments to escape being too offensively bad but I'm still immeasurably let down. Dee Wallace is great, though. I wonder what Doctor Satan is up to.
I... wanted to like this so badly, it physically hurts me to write this. I revere the first two films in this trilogy and thought it ended contently on the previous one - though I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to seeing more. However, the way this was practically forced out of Zombie when he wanted to make another film instead (after over a decade of swearing off interest in another sequel already) plus the whole thing being plagued with a stifled budget and Sig Haig's failing health on top of that just makes it a sad affair in more ways than one. It starts off okay, begins with a substantial amount of 'martyred killer' psychobabble ("Justice is a fucking knife", "All hail the man behind the grease paint!") and hallmark Zombie sadism, albeit significantly toned down this time around much to its detriment. I still applaud Zombie in his effort to make every entry into this canon a different experience, but there's nothing going on here - it's essentially a diet retread of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘭'𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 meets a boring hangout movie that barely even attempts to delve into the tantalizing Manson-era publicized serial killer culture it teases in its opening scenes. Looks like cheap DTV shit too, especially that criminal CGI blood. Just so disappointingly cursory in its storytelling, obviously this would have suffered without Haig anyway but the Richard Brake replacement character stands around and does jack shit. Moon-Zombie and Moseley are intact but to what effect? Their characters come out worse off than they were 15 years ago. Has enough alright moments to escape being too offensively bad but I'm still immeasurably let down. Dee Wallace is great, though. I wonder what Doctor Satan is up to.