Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight (2020) in Movies
Nov 13, 2020
Condemnable for the dubbing alone
Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight is a Polish horror film about a group of technology dependent youths visiting an offline summer camp who are terrorised by a danger lurking in the woods.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
The film follows a small group centred around Zosia (Julia Wieniawa), as they head out from the camp on a 3 day trek into the woods and encounter some very unfriendly locals. I’m afraid that from the very start, there’s nothing about this film that is particularly original. Pretty much every classic slasher horror is noticeably referenced here, from Friday the 13th to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and everything in between. It even drifts into sci-fi at one point. Some might say this is a homage to these films, but for me it was just a blatant copy. From the hillbilly bad guys in wooden cabins to the use of a machete, it all just felt so unoriginal. There was nothing at all in this that didn’t remind me of another, much better film. And that’s not even taking into account all of the clichéd horror movie tropes that are thrown in throughout - I’ve lost count of the amount of times I’ve seen dismembered deer/wildlife and phone batteries that are conveniently dying to name but a few, and Nobody Sleeps in the Woods tonight can’t seem to avoid these.
Despite this, there are some (very few) positives. The score is surprisingly atmospheric and dramatic, and works so well to build some much needed tension. The practical special effects, at least in the death scenes, are also good and there’s a pretty decent amount of gore. However this is pretty much the only good things I can say about this film. Whilst the death effects might be good, the creature/enemy effects are severely lacking and they look very cheap and second rate. It doesn’t help that their characters are rather silly and have no real purpose other than to kill. And even their murdering appears to be nonsensical and sporadic – for instance in one scene killing a character who’s outside yet completely ignoring those in tents a mere metres away. The youths don’t fare any better when it comes to characterisation either. They are your usual slasher movie group and aside from Zosia none have any real depth or back story, and for the most part they don’t live enough for you to care anyway.
But even considering all of the above, by far the worst crime of this film is the fact that it’s dubbed. Dubbing is one of my personal pet peeves. I cannot abide watching anything where the sound doesn’t sync with actors mouths moving, especially when the dubbing isn’t intended as tongue in cheek. And worse still, Nobody Sleeps in the Woods Tonight features the most cringeworthy dubbing I’ve ever heard, with some very stereotypical American voiceovers that are made worse by the cheesy script that tries to shoehorn in as many geeky pop cultures references that it can find. Within 10 minutes I’d had enough and I do wonder if this film could’ve been much more bearable has it just been subtitled instead.
Dubbing aside, this film is still pretty poor and riddled with so many clichés that you can barely discern any truly original ideas. If you want to watch a horror film like this, you’d be better off watching the classic originals.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Fatman (2020) in Movies
Dec 21, 2020
I'll level with you on this one, I had no idea what I was in for, but Mel Gibson as a crazed looking Santa had me sold, so I went ahead a brought this one on DVD.
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
As Santa tries to keep his workshop afloat in ever trying naughty times. But as he diversifies his team, a new problem raises its ugly head, eternally naughty Billy is less than impressed by his coal and hires a hitman to take Santa out of the festivities for good.
The idea of making this sort of Christmas film is wonderful to me, the action-packed ride of a thriller with just enough festivity to make it a great alternative Christmas movie choice... *chef's kiss*
Bringing the added twist of children getting a little less nice every year, we see the stark reality that this brings to Santa's business model. It gives him the very modern concern of traditional businesses... and I really liked that angle.
Gibson in the gruff but jolly role of Santa fits well with this aesthetic, and the way he manages to turn Santa into a hardened action star really amused me. There were great subtleties in the character and I loved how we saw his changes, and how they dealt with the mystery of Santa as an eternal, all-knowing character. And for that matter, the elves and how they prove to be the most effective workforce on the planet.
Pitted against Santa we have Walton Goggins as our hitman and Chance Hurstfield as Billy... who is the first person I have wished a reindeer trampling on. Billy is the evil part of the baddie contingent, while the Skinny Man (as he's named on IMDb) really feels like he's just bad for the paycheck and you'd actually bring him round after a good talking to. Goggins has an interesting backstory to his character, and yet for some reason we never get a very satisfying look at it. An opportunity missed that leaves part of the storyline a little unanswered.
Almost instantly I was struck by the look of the film, the general muted tones with punctuations of red and green made for very strong visuals. The snow-covered scenery and rustic feel to Santa's compound was a lovely addition too, and it was a refreshing change to the vibrant and excessively cheery depiction of a "traditional" Santa's village.
While I loved the idea they were conjuring here, there were bits of the execution that didn't feel quite right. For an action film, it was missing some... kapow... literally. The explosions had no wow factor and seemed rather tame for this outlandish tale. The film also felt like it was trying to be too many different things. Billy's overly animated maniacal behaviour felt like it was trying to keep the film for a younger audience, but with a 15 rating that was out of their reach. This, coupled with the missing Goggins backstory felt like they weren't convinced by their own ideas. With the film being quite a short 1 hour 40 I think it could have stood a few additions here and there.
I'm definitely here for the menacing Father Christmas, and more actiony Christmas movies in my life. The way they switched this one up put a genuine smile on my face.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/12/fatman-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scream (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
The much anticipated new release, I was amazed that I managed to avoid seeing the trailer or spoilers (I even only vaguely saw the poster), and after seeing the film... I'm not sure that was entirely sensible, I should probably have knocked down my anticipation a bit by looking at all of it.
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
The Scream franchise has long been one of my favourites, the lighter kind of horror that isn't actually that horrific. (Maybe I'm just a little jaded.) Controversially, my favourite is Scream 4, I enjoyed the slightly updated concepts, and that's what gave me some hopes for this fifth instalment.
Woodsboro once again feels the weight of its history when Ghostface comes back to torment the locals, bringing home its most famous residents.
A young girl, Tara, has the typical Scream opener, setting off the latest spree. With all this happening it draws her estranged sister back to town, and she feels the need to investigate the recent incidents. But she needs help, so she enlists one of Woodsboro's experts who has seen his fair share of Ghostface. As the killer gets closer to their end game, Sydney and Gale are drawn back to try and end his legacy.
That's a tried and tested formula, so it's a reasonable decision to go with it, but the execution didn't hit right for me. There were too many points that just weren't believable, even with the suspension of belief for this type of film, and this was yet another film that really overegged the fact that it was trying to be clever.
While all four of the previous films we have some different aspect to them to set them apart from each other, here, while they do have a new twist, the rest is just a rehash. Which I get, that's the point, but that only works if it's executed well.
Our returning cast were as you would expect, great repeat performances for their characters. The new additions... well, I felt like they would have been better suited to a spoof than a "serious" horror movie. While I wasn't keen on their performances, the script also didn't help them much. The prospect of seeing any of them again in the next one (yes, Scream 6 has been greenlit) doesn't appeal.
Sam is our lead character, and she's no Sidney Prescott. While her backstory has potential, it's definitely not realised in this film. There's little chemistry on screen and a distinct lack of terror befitting someone in this role.
I did go and see it twice, I genuinely thought I must have missed something. This was a similar feeling to when I saw Endgame, initially I was not a happy bunny, but the second watch was a definite improvement. Here that sadly wasn't the case. There was that same feeling as the first time, no excitement to come back and see it again, and absolutely no love for the way the storyline unfolded.
The score for this is a little upsetting, it puts it at my least favourite of the franchise. The few bits I found enjoyable had no chance of outweighing the bad, this definitely won't make it out of fifth place in the series ranking. Will I watch it again? Sure. When it's streaming, and in a rewatch before 6... but apart from that, I will have to relegate it to the pit I threw Die Hard 5 into.
For added spoilers, check out the full review on my website: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2022/02/scream-2022-spoiler-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Knock at the cabin (2023) in Movies
Mar 31, 2023
Disappointing Ending
Writer/Director M. Night Shyamalan is a hit or miss film maker and that is because his films (usually) rely on a “twist” in the proceedings that make the movie you are watching turn into something different. Sometimes it works (the classic THE SIXTH SENSE), sometimes it doesn’t (THE HAPPENING). But, at least he has the courage of his convictions and you have to respect him for that. However, in KNOCK AT THE CABIN, Shyamalan is doing something that might undercut those twists – he’s beginning to pull his punches.
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
KNOCK AT THE CABIN opens with an interesting premise – a couple and their daughter are at a remote cabin (with, conveniently enough, no cell phone service) when 4 strangers show up and declare that the world will end unless one of the 3 is sacrificed to stop the upcoming carnage.
It’s a good idea that has, inherently, some moral complications and one quickly jumps onto the side of the 3 in the cabin, writing off the 4 strangers as insane, but as events transpire – and the seeming sincerity of the 4 strangers comes into focus – one starts to have doubts.
Shyamalan does a professional job of weaving the tension into the first ¾ of this film as the 3 in the cabin are trying to make logical sense out of the predicament they are in while the 4 strangers become more and more desperate in their attempts to convince the trio in the cabin to sacrifice one of themselves. This is a director sure of himself and slowly, strongly leading the audience to the ending.
He helps himself by casting some VERY good performers in a film that, basically, takes place in one room. Jonathan Groff (Broadway’s HAMILTON) and Ben Aldridge (Thomas Wayne in the TV Series PENNYWORTH) are convincing and believable as the besieged couple, while David Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films), Rupert Grint (yes, Ron Weasley from the HARRY POTTER films) and newcomer (at least to me) Abby Quinn (RADIUM GIRLS) counterbalance these two nicely. Special notice needs to be made of the 4th person knocking on the cabin, Nikki Amuka-Bird (THE OUTFIT) and youngster Kristen Cui – who both bring much needed pathos and humanity to a film that could have turned into an out-of-control testosterone fest, but ended up being grounded by these two.
So, all of this adds up to a very good time at the movie theater – providing that Shyamalan can stick the landing of this piece.
Alas, he does not. And he does something worse – he pulls his punches as the outcome of one of the characters is changed from what happens to them in the 2018 novel THE CABIN AT THE END OF THE WORLD by Paul Tremblay. Shyamalan could have delivered a gut punch to the audience to accentuate the past bit of time spent with these characters (kind of like what Frank Darabont did with THE MIST) but instead decides to play it safe and lands squarely in the middle of mediocrity-land.
Your enjoyment of this film will depend on how much you like how this film ends. For the BankofMarquis, it was ¾ of a good film with a bad ending.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes 2 (2022) in Movies
Nov 14, 2022
Pleasant and Entertaining
Back in September 2020 - in the heart of the pandemic shutdown - Netflix released ENOLA HOLMES which was dubbed “the teen version of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes” - one can decide for themselves if that is a good or a bad thing. For me, this flick was an agreeable way to spend a few hours and I, for one, was looking forward to further adventures of Enola and her more well-known older brother, Sherlock.
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, in ENOLA HOLMES 2, we get exactly that. A very entertaining way to spend a few hours with characters that continue to be a joy to while away the time - and a mystery - with.
Starring Millie Bobby Brown (11 in STRANGER THINGS), Enola Holmes 2 follows the titular character as she has opened her own, competing, Detective Agency. But, as these sorts of things go, her case ends up intertwining with her famous older sibling’s case, so we really get “Holmes and Holmes”.
And that is just fine with me for Brown and Henry Cavill (who plays Sherlock Holmes and who has previously played the MAN OF STEEL) make a winning pair, working off each other with just the right tone of mystery and fun and they look like they are having a good time figuring out the central mystery of this story.
Credit for this must go to Director Harry Bradbeer (Director of the first ENOLA HOLMES film) who came up with this story based on Nancy Springer’s characters (she wrote the ENOLA HOLMES books) and to which Jack Thorne bases his screenplay on. Bradbeer seems to understand these characters and the tone of this film. He makes just the right balance between mystery and fun - keeping the proceedings moving along at a jaunty pace, so the audience can enjoy the ride, but aren’t too jostled around by it.
Brown and Cavill fit right into this tone as does the always wonderful Helena Bonham Carter (she of many films, let’s go with A ROOM WITH A VIEW) as the mother of both of these two Detectives. The sturdy David Thewlis (Professor Lupine in the HARRY POTTER films) brings along his professionalism, comedic timing and mysteriousness as Police Inspector Grail while Louis Partridge returns as the handsome almost-love interest of Enola, Lord Tewkesbury.
Special notice needs to be made of Costumer Consolata Boyle (THE QUEEN) she populates this film with the prerequisite muted colors of 19th Century London (lots of Grey, Black and Dark Blue) but she manages to give Enola just enough of a flair in her costumes. For example, the blue of her skirt is just brighter enough than those around her to punch her up, but it is not so much brighter that it is obviously making her stick out. It is a smart, subtle touch to a very pleasing film to look at.
And that is, really, the bottom line of this movie. It is a very pleasant movie, with a mystery that is interesting enough to keep a person hooked, but not overly complex or dingy as to turn people off.
A good family film - and that is a compliment - the type of film that can be enjoyed by young and old alike.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars
And you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery (2022) in Movies
Dec 31, 2022
Not "just" a Murder Mystery
Move over, James Bond, Daniel Craig has another series to star in.
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A surprise hit when it was released in 2019, KNIVES OUT was Daniel Craig’s first outing as Southern Master Detective Benoit Blanc. This All Star whodunnit, Directed by Rian Johnson (STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI) was a resounding hit and a sequel was inevitable. The biggest mystery was the question as to whether the new mystery - and this character - would hold up to the first one.
And…that question has been answered as THE GLASS ONION is a fascinating, interesting commentary on our modern “Click Bait” society, the pandemic and the shallow people looking for attention while also disguising itself as a murder mystery.
THE GLASS ONION does what a good sequel should do - take the essence of the first movie (the characters, the tone) - and opens it up in new, unusual and daring ways. And, in this, THE GLASS ONION acquits itself nicely.
Credit, of course, goes to Writer/Director Johnson who found a new premise and direction for our intrepid Detective to go and peels back the layers of this Onion in intriguing and clever directions. The story was always one step ahead of the viewer in it’s twists and turns - the sign of a well devised mystery - and Johnson knows how to thread this needle honestly (the clues were there all along, you just needed to see them). He also throws in enough red herrings to keep the audience guessing and mentally going down dead-end rabbit holes.
Craig puts back on the SeerSucker Suite of Benoit Blanc and this suit, improbably, fits him perfectly. As befits a good actor who gets a second chance to play a character, Craig fleshes out Blanc while settling back into a character that is now familiar to the audience.
As befits a good murder mystery, Johnson brings together an All-Star Cast and not only does one have to figure out “whodunnit”, but in this GLASS ONION, one also needs to figure out “who’s gonna get it”. Edward Norton (Fight Club), Kate Hudson (ALMOST FAMOUS), David Bautista (GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY), Kathryn Hahn (BAD MOMS) and Leslie Odom, Jr. (Broadway’s HAMILTON) all bring the right level of star power, mystery and intrigue to their characters and they blend together into a nice ensemble that adds to the “whodunnit” aspect of this film.
Sticking out from this ensemble - and the clique that the others have formed - is Janelle Monae (HIDDEN FIGURES) as an estranged person from the past who will help unlock the secret of THE GLASS ONION - but will it be as the solver of the mystery? A key piece of the puzzle? The victim? The murderer? Her performance brings all of that to the table and continues to get me wondering why Ms. Monae isn’t a bigger Movie Star than she is. She has shone in every film that I have seen her in (including the woe-fully misguided ANTEBELLUM). It was GREAT to see her shine again.
An original murder mystery - that is more than “just” a murder mystery - THE GLASS ONION will be satisfying for those who enjoy these types of films, while also bringing something new to the genre…and cements Benoit Blanc as a character that Daniel Craig will be playing for many films to come.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)