Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
DriveBox - Vehicle Infotainment & Navigation
Music and Navigation
7.0
Rate It
App
Car app award 2014 *** UK APP & MOBILE DESIGN WINNERS 2014 FOR BEST CONNECTED APP *** DriveBox is...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Savages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Over the past 15 years, Oliver Stone’s films have been kind of hit or miss to me. It’s as if Stone is still trying to make the same controversial films he became popular for in the 80’s and early 90’s. Only, as an audience, we have become keen to his filmmaking style and therefore his more recent work suffers from the apathy of a “show me something new” culture. Still, despite his failures, Stone does not makes apologies for his work while he continues in his quest to make films about controversial subjects. This time around Stone strives to take us into the violent world of the Mexican drug cartels though a film adaptation of the novel Savages by Don Winslow.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
As the film opens we are introduced to “O” (Blake Lively) who, as our narrator, acquaints us with the open yet loving relationship she shares with our two protagonists, Chon and Ben. Chon (Taylor Kitsch), an ex-Navy SEAL, is unquestionably the muscle of the trio’s operation. Chon was the original financier for his high school friend Ben, (Aaron Johnson) the peaceful, charitable, botany genius who has created the most potent marijuana in the world. Together these two embody the perfect man for O, while the three of them enjoy the spoils of the small marijuana empire they created in southern California.
That is until they gain the attention from a Mexican cartel intent on creating a stronger foothold in the southern California area. The cartel offers them a partnership and explains that by teaming up their business will triple in three years. But when the trio refuse the offer, the ruthless head of the cartel, Elena (Selma Hayek), instructs her enforcer, Lado (Benicio Del Toro), to kidnap O and hold her hostage so the boys will cooperate. Soon our heroes use their network of connections, like crooked DEA agent Dennis (John Travolta) and financial broker Spin (Emile Hirsch), to battle the cartel in a series of savage maneuvers to get back their one “shared” love.
Stone has been known to inspire his actors to give Oscar worthy performances. Sadly, you will not find any such performances here. That is not to say that the acting was terrible. It just seemed that the characters themselves are uninspired which is a shame because I would have liked to have seen some growth in this young cast, especially from Taylor Kitsch.
I feel that many critics will be hard on Taylor Kitsch because of his previous epic fails of 2012 (John Carter and Battleship) however I am surprised to admit that, for this movie at least, he gets a pass in my book. Not because he delivers a fantastic performance that makes me believe he’s truly an up and coming talent, but rather because he is convincing in his portrayal of Chon. When O describes our protagonists as each being one half of the perfect man, she refers to Chon as “Hard Steel,” which is exactly what Kitsch plays him as, a one-dimensional, emotionally devoid character with no growth or any real redeeming qualities other than the ability to go to war. Regardless of whether or not Kitsch has any additional acting range not showcased in this film, I cannot penalize him for his performance in this movie. He fit the part that he was cast in fine.
Blake Lively (Gossip Girl, Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants) plays O, short for Ophelia. And yes she channels the mad, love-struck, melancholic character from Hamlet after whom she is named. And while it is easy to make those comparisons to the character of this film, they only appear to be on the surface, if anything. And herein lies the problem. Regardless of how you feel about her open relationship with Ben and Chon, the more I learned about her, the less I cared. Like Kitsch’s character, O is boring and one dimensional. She is the product of being a pretty little rich girl whose mother is off somewhere with husband number twelve. She has been getting stoned every day since she was young and the only place she finds herself loved is in with the company of Chon and Ben. Tragic, I know. While watching the film I honestly thought to myself, if I was Ben or Chon, I would say, “Fuck it. Cut her loose and let’s go to Asia.” She has no redeeming qualities other than being good looking and a good lay. So why would they go through so much trouble for her? The trio’s relationship is weakly tied together by her telling us through narration but never really materializes on screen. At times you get some of a feeling that Ben actually loves her but that love is never really reciprocated from O. It is safe to say that that I did not derive any loving connection from Lively’s performance, though her deliver as a narrator was tolerable.
Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass) is the one redeeming performance from this young cast. In contrast to Chon, O describes Ben as “Soft Wood” which makes him the better half. Ben is the one character who actually goes through some kind of character arc and growth. Using the wood analogy, we watch him bend from the peaceful Buddhist businessman to the man who will sacrifice everything, to get back this woman he loves. Nowhere is this better embodied than when Ben is faced with the tough choice of sticking to his peaceful beliefs or incinerating a man in cold blood during one of their moves against the cartel. I found myself actually curious about what Ben would do next. Unlike Chon and O, Ben has some depth and struggles with his personal beliefs, his love for O and what needs to be done. Needless to say, Johnson delivers a believable performance that actually helps move along the action and was the only protagonist that kept me interested in their battle.
In addition to Johnson, the film is littered with several strong supporting cast members who all deliver solid performances. Selma Hayek is strong as Elena, the leader of the cartel that challenges Ben and Chon. She is a ruthless and shrewd businesswoman and yet has a better “sense of morality” as she explains during her interactions with O and her own daughter. Her enforcer Lado is played by Benicio Del Toro who, with the help of an uncomfortable rapist mustache, comes off as an extremely menacing character. Del Toro solidifies himself on screen by being down right creepy and yet intelligent in his own savage way. During every moment of screen time you expect him to kill someone just because it is good for business.
A needed bit of change of pace is provided by an unexpected performance by Emile Hirsch (Into the Wild) as Ben and Chon’s witty financial broker, Spin. As well as by John Travolta who plays Dennis, the dirty DEA agent who’s in Ben and Chon’s pocket. In fact, even though Travolta’s screen time is maybe a total of 12 minutes, his performance steals the show with his sole bit of comic relief, for lack of a better explanation. Perhaps the strongest acted moment of this film is during a standoff scene between Del Toro and Travolta that in many ways makes me want to know more about those characters. And what that movie would be about.
In typical Stone fashion the movie is shot in a variety of film angles and stylistic devices used to foreshadow and at times create a foreboding presence. Visually the movie provides a strong and believable feeling for the world these characters live in and the way that they operate their business. In addition, narration is used at points to move along the action and provide the audience with insight that otherwise would not have been possible on performances alone. I personally have no problem with narration as long as it is set up from the beginning and used to advance the story, which it is. However in the final act, the movie introduces a film device from left field that completely kills the already weak pacing of the movie. I cannot get into it without giving away the story, but I can see how this device could completely ruin the movie for those patrons who are already disinterested by the time the final act rolls around. Especially for those who do not find any connection to any of the characters. In which case, the pacing of this film will seem slow and drawn out.
I am torn about my review of this film. Savages is something that I wanted to like more than I did. Two of the three protagonists are one dimensional and if it was not for Johnson and the strong supporting cast I might have found the movie boring. It was also completely different from the expectations set by the commercials. Those looking for an action movie will feel misled and will more than likely be disappointed with the film. Not that there is not any action, only it comes between very long periods of dialogue and slow pacing. By the end of the movie, you are either invested in these characters or just waiting for the lights to come up in the theater. And in typical Oliver Stone fashion the movie tries to make us question our own perception of just what it means to be a savage.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Let's Go Play At The Adams' in Books
Mar 15, 2018
<b><i>Warning, this review is kind-of spoilery.</i></b>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
Im not even sure where to start with this review what a disturbing, strange, and violent novel.
I had so many different thoughts running through my head with this novel, that I actually had to start myself a little review notebook where I could put all my thoughts on paper. This is going to be a long review I can already feel it.
I should start by saying, this book turned out to be nothing like I thought it would be, but that hasnt let me down. This is a very uncomfortable 4 star read. Where American Psycho was 5 stars because I enjoyed the reading experience and Patrick Batemans deranged, dorky character (in the least sadistic way possible), this is the complete opposite. This was an unenjoyable 4 stars because it was just so dark and disturbing am I making sense?
What struck me about this novel at the beginning was that I disliked our victim, Barbara. She awoke gagged and tied up, and was merely annoyed, if not amused by the childrens game. Even later, when she realised that she really was a prisoner, she was snooty and still thought herself better than the children. Obviously, as the torture progressed and got worse, my opinion of her did change, as she changed too.
While this book sounds like its going to be a quick, dark story about the kidnapping and torture of a babysitter, its actually a lot slower than that and there isnt a huge amount of the torture in front of our eyes. It goes on behind closed doors and is only hinted towards this doesnt make it any less skin crawling, however! This novel is largely focused on the characters and their thoughts throughout the week-long crime.
A lot of peoples reviews mentioned how the characters in this werent believable, but I think otherwise. Yes, maybe the idea that 5 kids all come together and mutually agree to kidnap and torture an adult is a little strange, but as individual people, I think its easy to assume they all really exist.
The eldest of the group is Dianne, at the age of 17, and I personally think she was the least likable but also least believe character. Her involvement in the kidnapping went no further than just because she was in charge of all the children simply because she was the oldest and she let them do whatever they wanted. She had no motive to want to hurt Barbara, she was simply cruel for crueltys sake.
Secondly, theres John, aged 16, and his involvement in the kidnapping went a lot further and was a lot more controversial. He had a motive, and that was simply lust. A sexually frustrated teenager is definitely easy to imagine and while only a teeny tiny amount go on to commit sex crimes, its totally plausible.
Afterwards comes Paul, aged 12, whose presence in the story is very strange. Hes not really got any motive other than his own dark desires. A weirdo 12 year old with violent tendencies is really nothing new Paul was just a little more over the top!
Next is Bobby, aged 10, the only kid of the bunch who shows any remorse at what theyve done. I personally feel that Bobby was the subject of peer-pressure. He thought kidnapping an adult would be fun, and as a young child, couldnt comprehend the consequences of his actions. Other reviewers didnt feel sorry for Bobby, but in a way, I did.
Lastly is Cindy, the youngest of the group at 9 years old. Cindy doesnt feature in the novel an awful lot, but when she does shes simply a bored young girl who doesnt fully understand the reality of whats happening. Even at the end, when things are getting more and more violent, Cindy doesnt care. Shes just going along with the rest of her friends.
As I mentioned before, there isnt a huge amount of on screen torture and violence, but when it is there, its grotesque and nightmarish. Johnson really did know how to write horrifying descriptions. Reading bits and pieces got really dark and at times I felt pretty squeamish.
One quick thing to say about the writing is that it really would have been nice to have more paragraph breaks! When the story is so dark and heavy, you need a bit of a breather sometimes, and you didnt get much of that with this novel.
Right, sorry this review has been a bit of a long, messy ramble! I really wasnt sure how to go about reviewing this weird, sinister book. If you like horrible books that are going to make you feel uncomfortable, and you can get your hands on this for cheap, I think its worth reading even just to be able to say youve read it! But its definitely, definitely not for everyone not even every horror reader.
<i>Thanks to Virginia on Goodreads for lending me her copy to read!</i>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Apr 16, 2018
Not a Masterpiece, but has a Masterful performance
With the DARK KNIGHT, Christopher Nolan kicks his movie's up a notch. His previous films were critical - but not necessarily commercial - successes. With the 2nd of his Batman trilogy, Nolan swings for the seats and in more ways than one, hits a home run.
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
THE DARK KNIGHT continues the "dark, realistic" Batman story line (based on the Frank Miller Graphic Novels of the same name) that Nolan started with BATMAN BEGINS. This film starts off simply enough - a "James Bond" type of opening action sequence that has Batman tying up some loose ends (specifically regarding the villain Scarecrow), but Nolan (and his brother, the Screenwriter Jonathan Nolan) do a clever thing, they interweave the introduction of a new villain, The Joker, into this universe.
While The Joker commits crime after crime, his real purpose is to bring chaos and anarchy to Gotham City - and he succeeds wonderfully well, despite the attempts of Batman, Alfred, Lucious Fox and Detective Jim Gordon to stop him.
As is befitting a criminal such as The Joker - and also, as befitting a big budget summer tent pole blockbuster film - the stunts of this film are amazing, over-the-top, explosive and LOUD. There are death defying stunts, breathlessly captured, long, screeching car chases (that's a good thing) and fight scenes that are well choreographed and are, by the most part, done "practically" (not with the aid of CGI), including a wonderful stunt of flipping a semi-truck and trailer up in the air and onto it's back by the nose of the truck.
These stunts would mean nothing if there wasn't some folks to root for and get behind - and this film has those characters - and performances - in spades with continued good work from Nolan "Dark Knight Trilogy" regulars Christian Bale (Batman/Bruce Wayne), Detective Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman), Alfred the Butler (Michael Caine, really shining here) and Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman - a nice character add to this universe for this trilogy). This core really brings the goods, which is good, for the newcomers to this series - Aaron Eckhart's District Attorney Harvey Dent and Maggie Gillenhall taking over the role of Rachel Dawes (from Katie Holmes) are pretty bland in comparison.
But...all of them pale in comparison to the once-in-a-lifetime performance and character of Heath Ledger as The Joker. Ledger, as most of you know, rightfully won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role - a rare feat for a "comic book" movie. This is not only the Best Supporting Actor turn for 2008, but I would argue it is one of the best Supporting Actor turns of all-time. Anytime that Ledger is on the screen, your eye goes to him and you lose all sense of anything else that is going on. His look, his tics, his pauses, his vocal patterns, his mannerisms, his walk, ALL convey a sense of the character and added all up, it is quite something to behold.
Many, many have called this their favorite "comic book" film of all time, but I don't think I share that idea. While Nolan spent much of his time on the characters, the "look" of the film and the effects and stunts, he left the story a little too thin and the length of this film is a bit too long, for my tastes. I was most certainly looking at my watch during the "thrilling conclusion" of this film waiting for it to be done.
Now...to be fair...most of the reason for that is that I was exhausted watching Ledger's performance. He wore me out. But...that's a compliment, not a complaint.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Tecarta Bible
Book and Reference
App
The Tecarta Bible is a beautiful, easy to use, full featured Bible app designed for quick...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated GoodFellas (1990) in Movies
Jun 26, 2020
LIKE A FINE WINE - gets better with age
I have to admit, when I first watched GOODFELLAS 30 years ago, I thought it was "good" but not "great".
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
The years and subsequent viewings of this epic masterpiece has slowly changed my mind.
Directed by one of the finest Directors of all-time, GOODFELLAS is based on the real-life experience of former "Wiseguy" Nicholas Pileggi (from his book) and depicts mob life in New York City in the 1960's and the 1970's.
Scorcese knows this world and it's looks & feels and you can sense that world while watching this movie. Whether it's the clothing, the set decorations, the vocal inflections or the music choices, Scorcese meticulously blends all of the minutiae of these eras and these people extremely effectively to draw a vivid picture of people - and gangsters - of another era.
It helps tremendously that he has an "A" cast to inherit the characters. Robert DeNiro shows his ferocious personae as a "force to be reckoned with" as legendary (their word) mobster Jimmy Conway. He has a danger to him that could erupt at any time, but he also has something else - probably even more dangerous - he's smart and wily and will meticulously plan his crimes out. This makes him stand out in a world where most are acting out of impulse. Joe Pesci, rightfully, won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his take on psychopathic gangster Tommy DeVito. What struck me on this viewing of the film was how small a role in this film that Tommy is. Pesci is not on-screen all that much, but for the scenes that he is in, he is incredibly powerful. You can see that Tommy is dangerous and needs to be handled with "kit gloves".
Scorcese took a chance by centering this film on an unknown actor on who's shoulders that this film will stand or fall - and he chose wisely - for Ray Liotta's performance as Henry Hill is fascinating to watch. He has a charisma and charm to him that draws you in, but there is also an air about him that repels you away at the same time. Scorcese cast another unknown, Lorraine Bracco as Henry's wife, Karen Hill, who is drawn towards the power and danger of Henry (and his world). Bracco was nominated for an Oscar and Liotta never came close to this level of performance for the rest of his career.
Credit, therefore, must be given to the Directorial job that Scorcese put in on this film. This is his masterpiece (despite what the Oscars say). Years from now when scholars look back on his career, this (along with Raging Bull) will be the films that are shown (not THE DEPARTED - the film that he, finally, won his Oscar for).
I find more and more nuance and richness to this film upon subsequent re-watches, and I drank those in on this viewing. GOODFELLAS is like a fine wine, it gets better with age.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars out of 10 (and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack Reacher (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Leaping straight from the pages of author Lee Child’s long-running popular novels and short stories, the tough-as-nails Jack Reacher has arrived on the big screen as the latest starring role franchise for Tom Cruise. Although described by Child as 6’5”, 250 pounds, with blond hair, Cruise does an admirable job of bringing the no-nonsense former military investigator to life.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
YoungMuslim Yasin, Tahlil & Ayat Al-Kursi
Reference and Book
App
#Top 10 Singapore! #Top 10 Malaysia! -------------------------------------- Excellent - 5 stars! ...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)