Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I'd been on the fence about this one. The trailer King Of Thieves looked both good and bad in equal measures. Some of the clips they used weren't even particularly good when you saw them in the context of the whole films so I have no idea how they made it into such an important cut. Since seeing the Unlimited Screening I've seen the second trailer that is actually much better than the first. It's probably a god send that I didn't see it before the film otherwise I think I'd have been even more disappointed.
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
The film runs at a surprisingly short 1 hour 48 minutes, but don't worry, it feels like a lot longer than that. At one point I checked my phone for the time and nearly audibly swore (which probably would have been drowned out by the swearing of the film) about there being 20 minutes to go.
The idea is a great one, and the true life story behind it gives some opportunities for hilariously comedic moments, and yet somehow nothing was really fulfilled. I laughed a little, but I really didn't find it as amusing as some of the other cinema goers. The were a couple of voices in the darkness who were laughing hard that then set of a tiny ripple of tittering. I'm glad they enjoyed it so much, but I didn't once feel the need to laugh so hard.
Looking back on it I was left wondering something... did any of the police characters actually speak? The only things I remember were screamed words while arrests were made and lots of knowing looks and satisfied grins. Honestly can't remember any lines at all. I'm thinking they hired the main line-up and went "well that blew the acting budget, better cut all the other speaking parts."
Something that bugged me slightly was the use of spliced footage from the actor's younger days. It's a nice idea, but ultimately, when it was used undermined the message at the end of the film. Brian doesn't want them to be seen as old boys who are past their prime, so the film should have let them walk off to their sunset retirement not jumble it up with their younger selves and losing that moment between them all. It would have made perfect sense having the footage mixed into the scenes where the police were uncovering their identities and piecing the case together.
That line up was indeed fantastic, and that's why this film was so disappointing to me. All of them have done much better work than this. The script, or real lack thereof is what contributed the most to this let down. I'm not really sure that it should have two stars at all. In fact, no... *I'm revoking one of them, I've just been reading my criteria and I can't let it have two. ★☆☆☆☆ The story behind it and the cast potential don't make up for this lacklustre film.
What should you do?
There are some good scenes and a truly star studded cast, but even those don't really make up for the potential that this film squandered. If you like heist movies then it might be worth a watch but I feel like there are better ones out there to see.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
All that loot, obviously!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Wolf (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
A group of Roman legionnaires in Britain are sent on a mission to find a group of missing messengers only to find themselves attacked by something that comes out with the full moon.
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
So basically it's Roman’s vs werewolves in the woods, a premise with so much potential. However it fails in oh so many ways. I feel a bit bad for this review because I did enjoy the film, admittedly I seemed to be the only one as everyone else left about half way through (ok there were only two other people there but they did leave) but as a film it was quite terrible. First off we have the legionnaires, the group have only been together for a few weeks and don't trust each other, and they consist of:
Shouting guy who has just been sent from Rome who can't seem to decide if he's channelling Nick Frost or Brian Blessed.
Not so shouting guy who is friends with shouting guy and likes to drink
Captain who doesn't seem very effective
Old guy who shouldn't be there, doesn’t get on with the captain
Tall blonde guy who is always on about his wife who about to have a baby
Germanic female scout that no one trusts
Ex slave woman who looks like she should be a witch (she’s not) who is friends with the captain
Black woman who has a brother
And two other guys I can't really remember
So, the film gets points for having a culturally mixed squad which is historically correct but they don’t act as a unit. They are always talking, even when hunting the creatures they never shut up. One of them say “We are Roman we do the hunting.” But they don't seem to know to be quite.
It does strike me that the film is trying to be (Or seem) historically accurate, there are mentions of tactical formations that can be used, everyone uses the names of an appropriate god and there is mention of what certain weapons are made of but all of this just adds to the feeling that the film has been made by a group of Roman reenactor enthusiasts.
I had a friend who said that ‘Cloverfield’ was one of the worst films ever because you never see the monster, we pointed out that you do but acknowledge that 'Cloverfield’ keeps the monster hidden to make it more mysterious and scary. Wolf does this as well, for most of the film all you see of the monsters are pink streaks that seem quite reminiscent of naked people and when you finally see the creatures they look like they could be extras in classic doctor who. The effects in general are a bit rubbish to the point of one the cast walking around with what looks like rice pudding or custard in his beard for ten minutes.
The camera work is sometimes shaky, shots of the sky blind you and there are times when it looks like the actors don't know how to hold a sword.
And the film doesn't end, there's a revelation, the survivors say they will continue the mission then the credits roll. There could be a sequel but if there is it will be because the cast want it and not on reviews (although I think I did enjoy it a bit).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
Laura Doe (1350 KP) rated Inside the Mind of Jeffrey Dahmer: The Cannibal Killer in Books
Mar 12, 2022
Jeffrey Dahmer is one of the serial killers that I didn’t know too much about and this book was definitely a revelation. It takes you through from Dahmer being born right up to his death and a lot of the in between.
I’ve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmer’s childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killer’s name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasn’t needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, I’m unsure if this was only because he hasn’t spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didn’t need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasn’t a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!
I’ve never read this author before but am aware of some of his other books and I think that this book was a good one to start with. I liked that we delved into Dahmer’s childhood and found some possible triggers from there but also that the author reinforced that not every child that suffers a specific trauma in their childhood becomes a serial killer, as I think it is important that the reader is reminded of this each time.
I also liked how there was a chapter for each of the victims and also in the appendix there were the charges in more detail for each victim too. Far too often when reading or watching documentaries about serial killers their victims are glossed over and forgotten while their killer’s name is remembered.
There were a few things that I disliked about this book, the main one being the whole chapter that seemed to be dedicated to slagging off psychiatrists and psychologists. While psychology is not an exact science and different people in the profession can come to different conclusions, I feel that the author spent too many pages trying to prove his point. I also felt that a lot of contempt for the profession was coming through in the writing, which, as somebody who wants to become a psychologist, is not something that I appreciated. I understand that everyone has their opinion on it, but I felt that far too much time was spent trying to get his point across.
There were also a few mistakes that made it hard to make sense of a few things, I understand that it has only just been published and there will be a few mistakes (there was a repeated word in a sentence that wasn’t needed) but when it is an obvious mistake with a date (in the Anthony Hughes chapter it says that he was last seen on 24th September 1991 and then 2 chapters below it says that his family were notified of his death on 5th July 1991) it makes for very confusing reading.
I also found that a lot of the time Christopher Berry-Dee referred to the book written by Brian Masters, I’m unsure if this was only because he hasn’t spoken to Dahmer in person while Masters did but at times I felt like I should have just picked up his book instead. I also found that sometimes the author seemed to boast about which serial killers he had met in real life when he didn’t need to.
Overall, I liked the humour in the book and found the writing style easy to get on with. It wasn’t a pleasant book (what book about a serial killer is?) but it was well written. I would pick up other books by this author in the future. Thank you to The Motherload book club on Facebook for the opportunity to win this book in a giveaway and the publisher Ad Lib for my copy!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (2023) in Movies
Jun 8, 2023
A Feast for the Eyes and the Heart
In 2018, Producer/Writers Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (THE LEGO MOVIE) presented the animated film SPIDER-MAN INTO THE SPIDERVERSE to unsuspecting audiences and this film burst onto the scene - and into our senses - with a visual cornucopia of comic-book styles that ushered in a new way to present a comic-book movie. In this film, multiple Spider-Mans from different “SpiderVerses” came to the home universe of the lead Spiderman (in this Universe, Spiderman is NOT Peter Parker, but rather Miles Morales), and they kept the comic book styles of their own universes while in the home universe of Miles.
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Get it? If not, hang onto your hats, for these two just took it to a whole new level.
In SPIDER-MAN ACROSS THE SPIDER-VERSE, our hero, Miles Morales (voiced again by Shameik Moore) leaves his home universe and travels TO multiple other Spider-verses with multiple other animated styles - as well as meeting a plethora of other Spider-folk.
The result of this is a visual feast that should be seen on the big screen. The artistry at work here is “next level” as the differing styles blend seamlessly with each other without becoming head-ache inducing. It is a master class of “Going for it” but wisely knowing how to “not go too far” and the filmmakers of this animated gem thread that the needle expertly.
But…that isn’t the best part of this film.
There is an underlying storyline that sets Miles off on his adventure and this part of the film is built upon relationships, love, duty and devotion. This film delves deeper into Miles’ relationship with his parents (voiced by Brian Tyree Henry, off of his Oscar Nominated role in CAUSEWAY and Luna Lauren Velez best known as Lt. LaGuerta on DEXTER) and this gives the film some heart.
But…that isn’t the best part of the film.
The best part of this film is Miles’ relationship with another Spider-person, Spider Gwen (Stacy) - voiced by Hailee Steinfeld (THE EDGE OF SEVENTEEN), this film wisely (there’s that word again) decide to have 1/2 of this film shown from her perspective and the depth of performance of love, loss and longing from Steinfeld is surprisingly deep and moving for an animated film and it is THIS relationship that really cements this film as something special.
Oh…and did I fail to mention the wonderful voice work by Jake Johnson, Jason Schwartzman, Issa Rae, Daniel Kaluuya and Oscar Isaac (amongst many, many others)? They all brought their “A” game to what is a tremendous movie going experience.
One does not need to see the first SPIDERVERSE film to enjoy this one - but it does help and one very much will need to see this film to enjoy the NEXT one (the 3rd film of the trilogy, SPIDER-MAN BEYOND THE SPIDERVERSE is set to be released next year), so if one is going to invest in these films, one should probably go “all-in”.
The filmmakers certainly did that - and the audience is the winner for their efforts.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated House of Wax (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As sure as the winter season brings snow and rain, summer is sure to bring sequels and remakes to theaters across the land. With many classic horror films such as “The Amityville Horror:”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” already released and with “The Fog”, pending, Hollywood is trying to find gold from the past.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
Thoughts on Child’s Play
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Characters – Andy is a young teenager that has just moved to a new city with his mother, he hasn’t made any friends, turning to his phone to keep him busy, he does have a hearing aid, but it is never clear how bad his hearing is, he gets a Buddi doll that will keep him company as he starts to become friends with the doll. Once he learns of the evil inside the doll, he does all he can to make sure his loved ones are safe, as he starts to make friends away from the doll, he never seems to go to school though. Karen is the single mother that is working double shifts to keep Andy happy, she starts dating a new man, which doesn’t please Andy and does all she can to put Andy first when things start getting out of hand. Chucky is the Buddi doll that has been unleashed from his safety restrictions, he is constantly learning from watching people, which brings out his violent side, which will see him going on a killing spree targeting anyone that hurts or tries to replace him as a friend to Andy. Detective Norris visits the apartment building where his mother lives for dinner once a week, he does notice Andy around the apartment building making sure he is safe.
Performances – Aubrey Plaza as the single mother is strong in her role, she does bring added character to a character that could have come off plain. Gabriel Bateman is great too because he shows us the isolation that he is going through during the film. Mark Hamill does voice the character of Chucky well giving us an entertaining character that get plenty of laughs. Brian Tyree Henry does bring comedy to his role, which is usually a more uptight figure in the film.
Story – The story here follows a boy that given a Buddi doll which soon starts to go on a killing rampage after learning from the technology around him. I do have conflicting feelings about this story, on one side I am disappointed we have scrapped the serial killer trying to get his soul into another body, which I feel is the main part of the franchise. On the positive side we do get to dive into the world where people are letting themselves are being controlled by technology, connecting everything to one source where an error could break everything. seeing Chucky learn is interesting to see too because we see how he processing each clip, line and environmental side of the world. it does borrow from a lot of different films from the past which can be picked up on. This des come off very fun, only it could have been its own new doll instead of just using Chucky showing the lack of originality coming out of the Hollywood.
Horror – The horror in the film is mostly slasher material, we see Chucky getting kills with plenty of blood splatter, with some original kills along the way.
Settings – The film keeps the settings looking very similar with the apartment building showing how hard up the family is, the department store does bring us a great showdown location too.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are strong with the Chucky doll being both creepy and moving in a robotic motion which seems nature.
Scene of the Movie – Chucky has a present for Andy.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – No Serial Killer side.
Final Thoughts – This is a fun horror that does get laughs and blood splatter, it does frustrate though by having to use the Chucky doll for what is a completely original idea.
Overall: Blood Splattering fun.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Curvature (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
If there’s any particular genre i’m particularly keen too, it’s science fiction. Books, movies, television, comics, you name it. I’ve been watching the old school versions of ‘The Twilight Zone’ and ‘The Outer Limits’ since I was like 5 years old (that could explain quite a few things actually). As far as movies? That’s going to lead only to the past, the future, other dimensions, etc. If you had to nail it down even further within the genre of science fiction, I’d have to go right to anything revolving around time travel. That’s where today’s film for your consideration comes in. This one in particular doesn’t seem to be getting the credit it deserves and although it’s a bit rough around the edges, I think it also deserves a shot.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
‘Curvature’ is a 2017 science fiction/thriller film (released on February 23rd of this year) written by Brian DeLeeuw and directed by Diego Hallivis. The film stars Lyndsy Fonseca, Noah Bean, Glenn Morshower, Zach Avery, Alex Lanipekun, and Linda Hamilton (yes … THEE Linda Hamilton as in ‘Sarah Conner’).
Helen (Fonseca) is grieving the lose of her husband Wells (Bean) in the aftermath of his suicide. Not long after, Wells’s colleague Tomas (Morshower) seeks her out and asks for her blessing to continue the research project that he and Wells were involved in. Being an engineer and a scientist herself, she agrees and not long after returns to work trying to confront the grief as best she can with the guidance and help of her mentor Florence (Hamilton). Without warning, Helen succumbs to a blackout and awakens several days later. Upon awakening at home, she learns that several days have passed and receives a phone call …. from HERSELF. Helen warns herself to get out of the house as soon as possible as a man in a black BMW is coming to the house to kill her. In the confusion that follows, she manages to barely escape and seek out her friend Alex. What follows is a story of deceit, betrayal, and a conspiracy that goes beyond what Helen could imagine where she can’t trust anyone … not even her future self.
Obviously, i’m biased her being partial to the genre. That being said .. this movie is was, is, and will be excellent. 4 out of 5 stars. What impressed me about the film was how well the writing went with the talent of all the actors involved. My only real complaint, is that I wish they had incorporated more dialogue into the 90 minute movie. It’s almost like they sacrificed time between characters for the special effects which I will say, were absolutely awesome for an independent film. The film fell somewhere between a movie and a television episode as far as the experience. I would’ve preferred it to be one or the other and not in between if that makes any sense. However, I was still blown away by the film and will gladly watch it again and add it to my library at the first opportunity. Not to give too much of the film away, one thing I found unique about this particular time-travel film is how the writer came up with the concept that the nature of the ‘experiment’ allowed for someone to only go back so far into the past between a few hours and a few days limiting how far back you could alter history so-to-speak. The intent wasn’t necessarily to save because too much time had passed … but to ‘stop’. As for the ‘star power of the film’, I saw it as a tip of the hat to other films in the time travel genre. This film definitely deserves a place in the science fiction/time travel library. Take my suggestion and give it a look.
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Ring (2002) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Rachel is a single mother and reporter that starts investigating the mysterious death of her niece, this leads her to a VHS tape which puts her in the same seven day warning, forcing her to investigate the tape, she uses her connections and skills as a reporter to unlock this truth, while become more desperate after her son watches the same tape. Noah is the ex-partner and father to Aidan, he is still dating college students, which is why they no longer date, he is however an expect on video, which sees him being used to help break down the tape, which does including him watching it, he doesn’t come off like a nice guy, but we get the scene which shows why he is the way he is. Aidan is the son of the two, he seems to be the most grounded of the three, he is always prepared for the day, knowing that his mother will be late, only he watches the video making him one of the targets for the curse within the video. Richard is the adopted father of Samara, his love for the horses as seen his life destroyed even with his connection to Samara being the reason for the curse.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the leading role is great, she gets to show us just how difficult being a single mother can be, while trying to face a life and death situation with trying to find the answers. Martin Henderson is solid enough in his role which sees him being a bad father that could learn over this week. David Dorfman does give us a creepy kid performance, while Brian Cox in his limited screen time makes a big impact.
Story – The story here follows a reporter that is investigating the death of a family member that is connecting a video tape which will give any viewer seven days to live. This story is a remake of Ringu and does fall into one of my favourite sub-genres of horror, the ghostly haunting investigation one, which is looking to solve a mystery and isn’t afraid to give us a moment of hauntings to push everything in the right direction. It is strange that part of this film has dated with the technology advances which could see the VHS side of the film going over people’s heads, but away from that seeing just how everything is connected, with glimpses of the video appearing through the film needing to be solved by both the character and audience gives this an interesting element for the audience to get involved in.
Horror/Mystery – The horror comes from the horrific imagines we see on the tape, we also know early on what will happen to anybody that watches the tape, by seeing just how the first opening kill looks. The mystery comes from just what we are seeing in the tape, it is a host of clues which will unlock the truth.
Settings – The film shows us the settings through the tape, each one has a connection to everything going on and makes us want to know just what the connection is going to be.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are fantastic to watch, with one of the greatest effects scenes in the closing of the film which will shock and wonder how it was done.
Scene of the Movie – The Horse on the boat is a horrific scene to watch.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – VHS has dated out now.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the greatest horror remakes, it remains scary through the years along with giving us the time scale everything is going to be revealed.
Overall: Wonderful horror remake.