Search
Search results
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Beats Me
The Rhythm Section is mismatch of La Femme Nikita, Atomic Blonde and all the Bourne films however it constantly skips so many beats that it just cant keep up the pace let alone be put in the same league as any of them. I feel the Spy film genre had largely started to become lazy over the last few years it seems like directors go for either style over substance or just replicate whats already been done and The Rhythm Section seems to try its hand at both. Its a film that im not entirely sure we needed because its filled with genre cliches and relocations of scenes/ideas from other films that have done it much better. Our main character for instance is liffted straight from La Femme Nikita and not only is her transformation process almost exactly the same but the way she looks becomes near identical too. Music integration is ripped from Atomic Blonde it just takes place in a different decade and what litte action sequences there are have been seen in the Bourne films. So as you can imagine I spent most of the film sat thinking "what is the point?", "why do I need to see this again?" and as the film traveled along the same old tracks boredom and fatigue started to settle in. Now im not saying Blake Lively or Jude Law are bad far from it they are both just miscast and deserve much better than this (if anything their scenes and chemistry together are the only thing saving this movie from being a total wash out). Theres almost no point in talking about the story because its of the most generic forgettable kind and while there is some suspense and excitement to be had its in relatively brief burts for a film that has a run time of nearly two hours. During these two hours nothing really happenes either and thats its biggest problem nothing feels like its been achieved and its final pay off especially feels disappointingly weak and higly unfulfilling. I would say theres about 3 short action scenes total and while the fight choreography is splendid and the car chase is exhilarating they are over in a flash and you are again subject to tedium before you arrive at another. End of the day I feel this movie wasted my time and while its not by any means horrible its just extremely unnecessary. Even last years Anna was way more fun and exciting than this.
Richard Hell recommended Pickup on South Street (1953) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Halloween (1978) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Smallfoot (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'm not one for horror films, but classic movies at the cinema are something to behold so I snapped up a ticket for what turned out to be a packed screening. It was a nice surprise to be treated to a little documentary before the film too.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
I had always assumed that Halloween was going to be scary, and it was, sort of. It was scary in a very different way to modern horrors though. The reason I tend to ignore the genre is that the story lines don't make up for the amount of "jump out of your skin" moments they put in. Something can be scary without having to make you jump.
On the modern scale of films Halloween isn't very good on several levels. That being said though, it's still an excellent film and the fact that it's so simple and plays on the basic human feeling of unease is great.
It's good to see that the horror movie staples were at their peak in the 70s: not turning the lights on when searching a dark house; only stabbing your attacker once, even though you thought he was dead when you stabbed him once the first time... AND the second time; and my personal favourite... I've stabbed my attacker and he's down, he looks dead so I won't bother checking, instead I'll just turn my back and take a breather for a moment.
One things that I couldn't help doing while watching this film was laughing. Come on, it's funny. But it's only that way to me because I've seen so many films now that I know what's going to happen. The bad guy is always going to have vanished when you try and point him out to someone, there will always be a creaking window or door, and 4 times out of 5 there will be a body behind/inside whatever you open. I still got those chilling feelings while watching it but I was also drawn in by the fact I was sitting there willing things to happen that I knew were coming.
What should you do?
It's definitely a classic and well worth seeing. Just remember it isn't the big budget movies you're used to seeing if you only watch modern things.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Normally I would say it's difficult to want something from a horror film, but in this instance I'd quite like some of the immense luck that's going around. Michael and Laurie both have an amazing ability to survive life threatening situations. That's something I would definitely want.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Cooler (2003) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
C is for Cash Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a tribute to Sue Grafton, I shall use the alphabet to inspire catchy titles. Because I am a nerd like that. Caution, ye land lubbers: ahead be spoilers. Proceed at your own risk.
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Mar 21, 2020
It's nice to get a different side of the comic book genre for once, I'm still suffering from Marvel/Avengers fatigue so this was a welcome diversion.
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
After a successful operation, soldier Ray Garrison has come home to take his beautiful wife of a well deserved break. What he doesn't realise is that he's being tracked by a team who are looking for information, and they'll do anything it takes to get it.
Waking up in a high tech lab with no memory Ray discovers that his body has been donated to a company after his death. RSC are pioneers in enhancements to the human body, taking people who might otherwise be given up on and giving them a new lease of life.
When you've had one of those days and you need some gratuitous violence you can't really go wrong with a Vin Diesel films... can you?
I can't say I ever go into films like this expecting a "masterpiece" of cinema, I was just hoping for some solid entertainment and it certainly gives that.
Enhanced humans always offer that level of escapism that allows for a few faux pas to come across as less obvious, but the trailer made me raise an eyebrow. The effects didn't look great in the few snippets we got, luckily, on seeing the final product thought I was pleasantly surprised. The close up action that wouldn't require major stunts were excellent and believable, I didn't feel like there were any holes to pick... until the elevator scene. You'll clearly see the graphic work and it's a real shame it is so bad in comparison to the rest, there's also a terrible chase scene that has no natural movement in it either.
It's not often Vin strays from a certain type of character so we get exactly what you'd expect from his portrayal of Ray Garrison, a driven "bad guy" with a reason to be mad at a lot of stuff. It's not groundbreaking but it's always fun to see.
Eiza Gonzalez as KT gets a good range to work with, she gives us an excellent character with a reasonable amount of depth compared to her counterparts... who I had to call Legs and Eyes in my notes because at no point did I notice if they had names or not.
Our bad guy was obviously Guy Pearce seems about right for him. It wasn't really out of his comfort zone either though and despite him being great as Dr Emil Harting it wasn't really pushing any boundaries.
Visually this film is pretty good, the fight sequence we get glimpses of during the trailer uses colour well and has some amusing little touches in it. A bit of humour and some shots that I'd associate with horror/thriller movies build that excitement and tension well. There's also a well edited montage that's used to great effect to show the audience an event succinctly without it becoming boring, which is always greatly appreciated in films.
There are a few comments I have but they definitely constitute spoilers so I'll keep them to myself, but there's nothing that majorly added or detracted from the film for me beyond what I've mentioned already.
As I said at the beginning, it's nice to have a different comic book entity on our screens and I think the story is a good one, we're thankfully given an interesting set of characters to focus on and that helps the story stay a little lighter. You know how I like an origin tale though and this seems a bit short on that bit of discovery. I've got the graphic novel to read though so I'm interested to see where it deviates. Despite its minor (and slightly major action CGI) issues I really enjoyed Bloodshot, Ray's anger issues really helped get out some frustration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/bloodshot-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Good Enough - Monsters Fighting Each Other
I grew up in the 1960's watching old monster movies on Saturday afternoons on an old black and white TV in the home I grew up in. A staple of these Saturday afternoon movies was the Godzilla monster movies from Japan, featuring such great monsters as Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan and Ghidorah. So, imagine my excitement when I realized that they all would be in the same film.
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And...that film...GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS...delivers the goods just fine. Sometimes you go to the movie theater looking for laughs, sometimes you are looking to cry, sometimes you are looking to have your mind stimulated with interesting thoughts and ideas and sometimes you just want to watch giant monsters battling it out over the remnants of Fenway Park in Boston.
The 3rd in the "Monarch Series" of films from Warner Brothers (following the surprisingly good 2014 GODZILLA film and the fun KONG: SKULL ISLAND movie of 2017), GODZILLA - KING OF THE MONSTERS follows Monarch as they find (and in some instances, re-awaken) giant monsters - TITANS as they are called - the Titans attempt to take over the planet from the humans (there's a "save the planet" message that is being used as the excuse)...but here comes good ol' Godzilla to save the day.
Besides the monsters, there are quite a few humans along for the ride...Kyle Chandler and Vera Famiga as a dysfunctional couple (who also happen to be experts in Monsters) who are trying to keep in check their daughter, Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS). Ken Watanbe, Sally Hawkins and Jason Strahairn reprise their roles as members of MONARCH from the 2014 GODZILLA film, 2 veritable "that person" actors, Thomas Middleditch & Aisha Hinds as other members of Monarch along with Ziya Zhang and O'Shea Jackson, Jr. - all of these actors are "serviceable" to the plot and machinations, reacting appropriately to the green screen carnage and monsters that they are pretending to react to. Only Bradley Whitford (as a Monarch Scientist) rises above things with a goofy, "almost too over the top" performance that captures the spirit of the proceedings. Add into this good ol' Tywin Lannister himself (Charles Dance) as a shadowy, non-feeling bad guy that seems to have an inexhaustible supply of men and material - kind of like Tywinn Lannister - and the "human side" of this movie is fun...enough.
But, make no mistake about it, this film - and the reason I came to see it - is to watch giant monsters fighting each other and destroying everything in their wake and this film delivers the goods. Director Micheal Dougherty ( KRAMPUS) does a "serviceable" job keeping the action moving and coherent while avoiding (for the most part) the headache-inducing "quick-cut" editing sequence. There's nothing much new or innovative in his approach to showing us monsters fighting and creating massive destruction, but he doesn't take away from the spectacle of the action on the screen so that's a good thing..
There are 2 more Godzilla films currently "on the books" to be produced - including next year's KONG vs. GODZILLA - which will keep me coming back to the IMAX in the multiplex for years to come...and that's just fine with me.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2018
In a word - fun
By this time, either you are "in" on the Marvel Cinematic Universe or you are "out". If you are "out", there's not a whole lot that I (or any other reviewer) will be able to do to change your mind. Which is too bad, for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a pretty fun ride. The folks at Marvel "have it down" and I can't remember the last time that I was disappointed by a Marvel movie.
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Until Death (2007) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Until Death starts as we see how Anthony Stowe (Van Damme) operates under his own addictions of heroin, sex alcohol which has put his career on the edge, his marriage in the drain and his enemy Gabriel Callaghan (Rea) is getting away with the crimes he wants.
When Gabriel catches up with Anthony, he puts a bullet in his skull leaving him for dead, only to leave him in a coma in which he shouldn’t recover from. 6 months later he awakens from his coma and is left to the care of his estranged wife Valerie (Giles), as he recovers it turns out he has changed becoming a better person and even more determined to track down Gabriel.
Thoughts on Until Death
Characters – Anthony Stowes is a dirty cop, hooked on heroin with enemies in the force and on the streets, the methods have made his hard to work with and his long running pursuit of Callaghan puts him in the firing line. After he gets shot and left for dead, he must recover, a process which see him changing to become a better man. Valerie is the wife that is about to divorce Anthony after years of problems between the two, after his injury she takes him in even though she has moved on with her life. Gabriel Callaghan is the ruthless mobster trying to get ahead in the city, he disposes of anyone that gets in his way and won’t let Stowe stop his plan.
Performances – We watch Van Damme movies to watch him kick ass, not because of his acting standards, he is good through the film as does give us a chance to work on his serious reactions, he doesn’t get to show the fighting enough though. Selina Giles does struggle with her role though, you never believe her acting in this role. Stephen Rea does seem to enjoy this villainous role where he can become darker as the film unfolds.
Story – The story follows a dirty cop that goes head to head with a crime boss only for his crashing life to be turned around by a near death experience. The pacing of the story is slow for my liking, we spend too much time with the bad version of Stowe and not enough on the reborn versions road to redemption, which is by the book. Granted we don’t need the deepest story here because we know what we are getting going into the film.
Action/Crime – The action is held back for the final act of the movie, which is fine, but when you have Van Damme in the leading role, you would expect more. The crime side of the film does play into the bigger picture of what is going on which give the characters the biggest part of the development they get.
Settings – The film uses New Orleans as the setting which is always a city used for dirty cop locations, it works well without being over used for the films backdrop.
Scene of the Movie – Final act is the saving grace of the film.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The damn camera turns.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical Van Damme action movie, it tries to give us a serious side without being able to capture this and we are saved by a final act action sequence which is entertaining to watch.
Overall: Van Damme 101
When Gabriel catches up with Anthony, he puts a bullet in his skull leaving him for dead, only to leave him in a coma in which he shouldn’t recover from. 6 months later he awakens from his coma and is left to the care of his estranged wife Valerie (Giles), as he recovers it turns out he has changed becoming a better person and even more determined to track down Gabriel.
Thoughts on Until Death
Characters – Anthony Stowes is a dirty cop, hooked on heroin with enemies in the force and on the streets, the methods have made his hard to work with and his long running pursuit of Callaghan puts him in the firing line. After he gets shot and left for dead, he must recover, a process which see him changing to become a better man. Valerie is the wife that is about to divorce Anthony after years of problems between the two, after his injury she takes him in even though she has moved on with her life. Gabriel Callaghan is the ruthless mobster trying to get ahead in the city, he disposes of anyone that gets in his way and won’t let Stowe stop his plan.
Performances – We watch Van Damme movies to watch him kick ass, not because of his acting standards, he is good through the film as does give us a chance to work on his serious reactions, he doesn’t get to show the fighting enough though. Selina Giles does struggle with her role though, you never believe her acting in this role. Stephen Rea does seem to enjoy this villainous role where he can become darker as the film unfolds.
Story – The story follows a dirty cop that goes head to head with a crime boss only for his crashing life to be turned around by a near death experience. The pacing of the story is slow for my liking, we spend too much time with the bad version of Stowe and not enough on the reborn versions road to redemption, which is by the book. Granted we don’t need the deepest story here because we know what we are getting going into the film.
Action/Crime – The action is held back for the final act of the movie, which is fine, but when you have Van Damme in the leading role, you would expect more. The crime side of the film does play into the bigger picture of what is going on which give the characters the biggest part of the development they get.
Settings – The film uses New Orleans as the setting which is always a city used for dirty cop locations, it works well without being over used for the films backdrop.
Scene of the Movie – Final act is the saving grace of the film.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The damn camera turns.
Final Thoughts – This is a typical Van Damme action movie, it tries to give us a serious side without being able to capture this and we are saved by a final act action sequence which is entertaining to watch.
Overall: Van Damme 101