Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
A Winning (enough) combination
I'm a sucker for Sherlock Holmes. I grew up watching the fantastic black and white Holmes films from the 1940's starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I checked out '70's Holmes flicks like MURDER BY DECREE and the 7 PERCENT SOLUTION and then re-fell-in-love with Holmes with the Jeremy Brett BBC SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series of the 1980's and, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch's modern take on the master sleuth in the 2000's was "must see TV" for me. I was even on-board with Robert Downey Jr's. "take" on this iconic sleuth and was thrilled when Sir Ian McKellen portrayed an elderly Sherlock Holmes in MR. HOLMES.
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Black Phone (2022) in Movies
Jul 19, 2022
Tense and Suspenseful
Part STRANGER THINGS and Part IT, the new Blumhouse film, THE BLACK PHONE, is a surprisingly effective horror/thriller that is reminiscent of the better Stephen King stories - and that just might be because the short story for which this film is based on is written by Joe Hill - Stephen King’s son.
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Wisely set in a time before cell phones (like both Stranger Things and It), THE BLACK PHONE tells the tale of a small town in Colorado that suddenly falls victim to “THE GRABBER” - an individual who grabs young teenage boys and kills them.
Smartly Directed by Scott Derrickson (the first DOCTOR STRANGE film), THE BLACK PHONE is effective for it focuses on the isolation of being in captivity, the anxiety of not knowing when someone is going to come through the door of the cell and the relationships of the young teens caught in “The Grabber’s” web. Credit for this, of course, goes to Derrickson who dropped out of Directing DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS (over “creative differences”) and chose this passion project as his salve - and the passion shows. It must also be pointed out that Derrickson, wisely, opts to up the tension of this film, rather than the gore, so this movie becomes a suspense flick and not torture-porn.
Derrickson also draws very good performances from the young actors playing the main roles of this film - Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy) and Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin). All are believable in their well written roles bringing more than just one-dimension to their characters.
These kids are more than ably joined by adult actors like James Ransone (IT: CHAPTER TWO), Jeremy Davies (TV’s LOST) and E. Roger Mitchell (OUTER BANKS). All of these folks bring gravitas and reality to a story that does drift into the un-reality at times.
And then there is the performance of the always good Ethan Hawke as the villain of this piece - THE GRABBER. It is a masterful performance by Hawke who brings humanity to this monster. Almost every actor that plays a villain say that they try to see the film from the villain’s point of view and Hawke brings that to this character in spades and (almost) makes one want to root for him. It is one of the better villains realized on film in the last few years.
One quibble with The Black Phone, is that it does have a tendency to sag a bit (especially in the middle). It is in the middle of the film that one can tell that this movie was based on a SHORT story and so, by necessity, there is some padding.
But that is picking a nit in what is a smart and tense film, one that will have you on the edge of your seat until the end.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Expendables 3 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Many times when a film series reaches it”s third installment, it is out of ideas and running on fumes. The idea that if a film has spawned a successful sequel it must have a trilogy is nothing new in Hollywood, but far too many times the third films loses momentum and goes through the motions for one last payday for the cast and studio.
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
In “The Expendables 3” Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and company lead the all star cast with a mix of old and new in order to provide a more diverse yet not entirely satisfying third act of the retro action series.
Barney (Sylvester Stallone), leads the remains of his crew on a daring raid as the film opens to free one of his former members played by Wesley Snipes. The action is as intense as ever, but thanks to a PG-13 rating, is much more subdued than we have come to expect from the series.
As Barney and crew contend with age and injuries, it is leaned that a person long thought dead has become one of the biggest arms dealers in the world and has his own private army. What makes matters worse is that said dealer (Mel Gibson), has a very complicated history with Barney and The Expendables and as such this mission is very personal when he is hired to bring him to justice.
With a new crew in place, Barney sets out to settle the score, but soon finds out that complications arise, forcing the old and new crew to unite in a battle against overwhelming odds.
If this seems to be a fairly simplistic overview your right, as this is about as complex as this film gets. There is some effort to show chemistry between the players but backstories and character development are for the most part left out. Gibson on the other hand brings a great new dimension to the film as the backstory to his character as well as his motivations were very interesting and kept my attention in what otherwise could come off as a cartoony villain role.
Harrison Ford replaces Bruce Willis as their C.I.A. contact and brings gruff charm to the role of Drummer and seems to delight in being in on the action as do the new and returning cast.
The biggest issue was that it seemed more retrained than what we expect from the series. Part 2 had the epic airport battle and a great fistacuff finale. Part 3 lacks the intensity and urgency of previous films and the cast appears to be going through the motions, just happy for one more ride.
Stallone reportedly mentioned he had ideas for a 4th film which would be fine with me, but they need to get away from this PG 13 lite version and bring the swaggering, over the top action of the previous films back and fast as with an aging cast, this film seemed very out of date and lacking the retro nostalgia.
That being said, if you want some no-brainer fun, it is worthy of checking out.
http://sknr.net/2014/08/15/expendables-3/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Evan Almighty (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) is a man who is going places. When last we saw Evan in “Bruce Almighty”, he was playing the foil to Jim Carrey and having one of the most spectacular on air meltdowns ever recorded.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
In the new film “Evan Almighty”, Evan has left his job as a Buffalo anchorman to take his place as a newly elected member of Congress. Evan ran under the campaign of “Change the World” and with his wife Joan (Lauren Graham), and their three sons, heads off to their new home in Virginia to embark on their new life.
Evan’s first day seems to be going well as he finds that he has been reassigned to a much larger office, and that he has been approached to co-sponsor a bill by prominent Congressman Long (John Goodman). This huge honor is not lost on Evan and he sets out to read the very long bill proposal at the sacrifice of a planned family outing. Needless to say this does not sit well with his children.
Evan’s life soon takes a series of unexpected turns when his alarm starts to go off at 6:14 every morning and mysterious shipments of wood and tools begin to arrive at his home. They are quickly dismissed as oddities, but even Evan has a hard time dismissing the arrival of a man who claims to be God (Morgan Freeman), who instructs Evan to build an Ark to prepare for a new flood.
Try as he might, Evan cannot avoid the facts as he soon finds himself followed by all manner of animals and growing a beard that will not go away, despite numerous shaves.
Those around Evan are convinced he is cracking from the stress of his new job, when he finally relents and begins to build the massive ark on lots adjoining his home. As the ark takes form, Evan begins to change and soon sports long hair and a beard and is clad in biblical robes.
This sudden transformation as well as his declaration before Congress and the television public that God has instructed him to build an Ark soon leads Evan to be barred from his duties in Congress, and a laughing stock to the nation.
Undaunted, Evan presses on, even though the strain is wearing on his family and friends as he is convinced he is doing the right thing.
What follows is a funny and touching adventure as Evan and company learn about priorities, life, and what truly matters in one of the most enjoyable family comedies in years.
The film works very well without being over the top or preachy in its messages. Carell once again shows why he is one of the funniest individuals in film and television.
Morgan Freeman is delightful as the almighty himself as he has a very smooth and compassionate style that helps him recapture the performance he did so well in the first film.
While not side-splitting funny, “Evan Almighty” has a lot going for it, and Carell and Freeman as well as the fine supporting cast keeps the film afloat.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hudson Hawk (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Hudson Hawk starts when Hudson (Willis) is released from prison, only to be drawn into committing one more burglary with his partner in crime Tommy Five-Tone (Aiello). The next day Hudson learns that not everything was as simple as just stealing a horse figure.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Hudson learns that the piece that he steals is involved in the world dominations and follow a strange amount of events, finds himself working for Darwin Mayflower (Grant), stealing the great works of Da Vinci.
Thoughts on Hudson Hawk
Characters – Hudson Hawk is a cat burglar that even after getting released from prison ends up back in the world of crime, only after stealing the first piece of art, he ends up needing to battle a world domination plan which takes him to the most famous art galleries in the world. he is wise-cracking that often on makes his own holes deeper without trying to. Tommy Five-Tone is the best friend of Hudson and does work with him on the crimes, he is often the butt of most of the jokes going on through the film. Anna Baragli is a nun that is undercover trying to stop the Da Vinci crystals coming together, she pushes off the flirts from Hudson who doesn’t learn her true place until too late. George Kaplan is the head of the CIA team tracking down Hudson, he knows each move he makes and will follow him to every location the job takes him too.
Performances – Bruce Willis really struggles with anything comical and this shows just how badly he handles this material, Danny Aiello does ok with the supporting comic moments. Andie MacDowell looks lost in this role for the most part, with only James Coburn seemingly knowing his place in the film.
Story – The story follows a cat burglar that gets given a job which soon sees him travel the world forced into helping criminals try to claim world dominance. The story here does feel very messy, it might well surprise where things go, but they do end up feeling completely random and make you feel like you are watching a sketch show rather than a coherent story. this is just a story that becomes difficult to watch and will end up making you lose interest quickly in the film.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action plays into the comedy, we have silly moments throughout the film which try to get laughs and fail to achieve this, we do enter a crime world that does feel like it will just be robbery before getting out of hand.
Settings – The film does use the locations of the famous galleries from around the world for the main locations, with each needing to used for the latest robbery.
Scene of the Movie – The first robbery.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The comedy is a big miss throughout the film.
Final Thoughts – This is a sloppy comedy that misses more often than it hits, it feels like a drag to watch and completely miss-cast movie.
Overall: Sloppy throughout.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Marauders (2016) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Marauders starts when a bank robbery which leaves the bank manager executed, the president of the bank Hubert (Willis) has an excellent reputation and with the FBI investigating the robbery, Montgomery (Meloni) and his team Stockwell (Bautista) and newbie Wells (Grenier) try to put the clues together.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
When the second heist happens, the fingers start pointing back at Hubert and a bigger conspiracy comes to the top with connection to a previous incident.
Thoughts on Marauders
Characters – Hubert is the bank president, he has always kept the face that the bank puts their customers first, but when his banks start getting robbed, he must deal with the fingers pointing back at him. Montgomery is the lead investigating from the FBI trying to get to the bottom of the heists, he has his own demons which haunt him everyday after the death of his wife and will not stop until he learns the truth. Stockwell is Montgomery’s trusted second, he is the tired cop figure, he is good at his job and hates people getting in his way. Wells is the rookie agent, with the qualifications to make him the best, he gets the jobs the others don’t want to do, while noticing things they miss.
Performances – The performances in the movie are mixed, we know that Bruce Willis is mostly mailing it in and it is a strange role for him. Christopher Meloni is the star of this movie, the determination and broken side of his character makes him stand out. Dave Bautista does get the funniest lines, some hit or than others, while Adrian Grenier starts strong but fades away in the biggest scenes of the middle of the movie.
Story – The story follows the effects of a brutal heist, the FBI must investigate the heist which brings us into the new web of conspiracies which could bring down a political powerhouse. This a story which does keep us guessing from start to finish, which is something I was surprised to see, as I thought this would be a lot messier. The positive of keeping us guessing, does leave the bigger question about just why the heists needed to be as brutal as they were because of certain injuries or deaths not needing to happen for the cause.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action is brutal and often in your face when it comes to the gun sequences, the crime side of the film comes from the heists and just what they are aiming to achieve from the heists. The mystery is what draws us in because we don’t know what is happening which keeps us invested throughout.
Settings – The film is set in the city which shows how the panic of the robberies starts flying around we see how things get out of hand.
Scene of the Movie – The heists do feel very intense, which I did like.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The last sequence.
Final Thoughts – This was a surprisingly entertaining film, having no expectations going in, this did become intense and kept you guessing even if things unravel in the final scene.
Overall: Enjoyable crime thriller.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) in Movies
Aug 1, 2019 (Updated Aug 3, 2019)
WBs second entry into the DCEU is a messy misstep.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It's the big one that comic fans have been waiting decades to see come to life on the big screen, the one that was infamously teased in I Am Legend, the one that was going to match The Dark Knight Returns, and it's just oh so dissapointing.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
After Warner Bros. kicked off the DCEU franchise with Man of Steel, a film that I thought was actually pretty good, I was full of Hope, and couldn't wait to see what they did with all of these beloved characters from years of DC stories.
When it was announced that the sequel would feature Batman in a loose adaption of TDKR, I was even more excited. When it was announced that this film would introduce the core members of the Justice League, I started to become concerned. It just screamed that Warner were trying to catch up with the already established MCU with a single film. It turns out that my concerns were justified.
The absolute biggest problem with Batman V Superman is that it just tried to do too much. And in doing so, creates a messy and often silly narrative.
The set up is pretty good, the opening scene of Metropolis being levelled whilst Bruce Wayne desperately tries to save his colleagues is pretty thrilling. It gives Batman a good, solid reason to want to fight Superman and neutralise this alien threat.
The plot is needlessly complicated when Lex Luthor gets involved (not quite sure what Jessie Eisenberg was going for in his weird portrayal), forcing Superman into a confrontation with Batman by means of kidnapping his mother.
When the big beat down finally arrived, it lasts just a few minutes before they become great friends very suddenly (due to their mothers infamously having the same name).
Not long after this, Wonder Woman is thrown into the mix (because reasons) and then they all fight Doomsday (because why the hell not) effectively cramming six movies worth of material into one very underwhelming and silly movie.
The mind boggles.
The Justice League are introduced though a series of short videos such as CCTV footage etc, and you have to wonder why they even bothered.
It's not all bad though. Ben Affleck as Batman is pretty inspired casting and is actually great. He's older, jaded, and pretty stocky, and his action scenes are ripped straight from the beloved Arkham video games. It's almost like Zack Snyder actually wanted to make a Batman film or something....
Wonder Womans presence is wholly unessecary, but for what it's worth, she's pretty badass, looks the part, and Gal Gadot does a good job of bringing her to life.
I also enjoyed the Knightmare scene hinting at Darkseid further down the line.
Unfortunately, the good parts are wrapped up in shambles. The MCU has been so finely crafted over the years, and it really confuses me why WB didn't take a similar route with the DC universe - a universe that has arguably better characters.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Flight (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I’m not good with dramas. I like to watch movies to escape reality and dramas are all about reminding you of the turmoil and awkwardness and unpredictability that is reality. But, only if they’re good. Dramas require an emotional response from the viewer, which can only be achieved through great performances, enhanced by story, music and editing. (don’t quote me I could be missing one). If one or more elements are missing, at best it’s an unexpected comedy, at worst you’ve just wasted time and money that you’ll never get back.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Flight in my opinion delivered. We start off with gratuitous nudity (for me it didn’t add to the story but guys will like it) from flight attendant Katerina Marquez (Nadine Valazquez) and a man, Captain Whip Whitacker (Denzel Washington) who’s about to hit his rock bottom. After a night of drinking and snorting some cocaine, together they take to the skies only for it to go horribly wrong, the plane begins an uncontrolled nose dive. Lot’s of close up shots put you right into the aircraft and you almost feel as if you’re on the flight as it’s going down (seriously my heart involuntarily started pounding faster).
Afterwards, the movie really hits its’ stride and gets into the gritty reality of what life can become. Denzel does an excellent job of bringing you in to the internal struggles with his demons; he’s so good in his denial. John Goodman plays a drug dealer Harling Mays, almost as a comic relief which actually works. Don Cheadle plays Hugh Lang, a criminal attorney sent to help Cpt Whitacker as questions arise about what really caused the plane to crash. He plays a great attorney, not smarmy, not slick, but intelligent and sharp, and in his own way, caring.
Nicole Maggen (Kelly Reilly), a drug addict who we witness goes through a relapse that puts her into the path of Cpt Whitacker. Co-pilot Ken Evans (Brian Geraghty) was a convincingly green pilot whom I would not want flying any plane I’m in. And flight attendant Margaret Tomason (Tamara Tunie), a good friend of Whitackers for several years and Pilots union rep Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) a long time military buddy who comes back into his life because of the crash. I liked both their performances, they really did great in their supporting rolls; you couldn’t have one without the other.
There is a question of devine intervention and redemption, but I think the movie steers clear of being overly religious. (I could have done without Ken Evans wife, overkill in my opinion and not necessary to the story). Anything more I say will spill the beans on the ending, so I’ll leave you with this; it really is unpredictable, you never quite know what Cpt Whitacker’s going to do until he does it. There are beautiful moments and bittersweet moments that create a powerful, emotional ride that I would recommend to someone who likes a good drama. And, even to people like me, who generally try to avoid them.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Looper (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In the world of 2072, it is learned that time travel has been invented and is declared illegal by all the governments of the world. Naturally, the criminal elements of the future embrace the technology. Apparently getting rid of bodies and people in the future is tricky because of innovative tagging and tracking technology.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.
The criminal bosses of the future send a man named Abe (Jeff Bridges) 30 years into the past to serve the criminals of the future with a new type of hit man called a Looper. In the new film “Looper” Joseph Gordon-Levitt stars as Joe, a Looper who never lets morals get in the way of his job. He is happy to promptly dispatch anyone sent from the future without a second thought.
Joe is well paid for his work, and is happy to enjoy the drugs and women that come with his job. Yet Joe desires to leave it all one day and travel to France. For a Looper to be retired, he is forced to kill a future version of himself, and in doing so, gets a fantastic retirement payout and 30 years to live it up since that is how long it will take for time travel to be invented. Naturally an older version of yourself cannot be sent back to be killed by your younger self for at least 30 years. But the increase in retirements is a bit disconcerting for Joe.
Things change drastically for Joe when his older self (Bruce Willis), appears and manages to escape before he can be killed by his younger self. For a Looper to have his target escape is a serious infraction, and in no time, Joe finds himself not only hunting his older self, but also on the run from his former friends and allies who have made him both older and younger a priority.
At this point in the film, I was hooked, as my mind raced with twists, possibilities, and the promise of the film. Sadly the momentum grinds to a halt in the second half as the older Joe attempts to ally with his younger self to stop a future crime boss while he is a child. This quickly becomes a very blatant “Terminator” rip off as older Joe attempts to locate and kill children who may be the future crime lord while younger Joe is biding his time hiding from his former associates while protecting a young child and his mother from his older self.
It does not take much thought to see where this is going but sadly the remainder of the movie is underwhelming and disappointing as the film recycles scenarios that we have seen many times before in better movies. The second half lacks any real action and climactic finale to give the audience the well-deserved payoff they waited for.
Willis, Bridges, and Gordon-Levitt do solid work but seem to be going through the motions as they never really earn any sympathy from the audience. Much like last year’s “In Time”, “Looper” has a great premise that starts well and then fails to live up to its potential.