Search
Bad Boys II (2003)
6.9
Rate It
Movie Watch
Hang on for maximum mayhem, full-on fun and the wildest chase scenes ever put on film! The action...
Whiskey Cavalier
7.3
Rate It
TV Show Watch
Whiskey Cavalier follows the adventures of FBI agent Will Chase (codename: Whiskey Cavalier) who,...
Big Love - Season 1
9.5
Rate It
TV Season
Bill Henrickson seems like a typical suburban husband and father, except for the fact that he has...
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Emperor of Thorns in Books
Nov 12, 2019
Emperor of Thorns is the third in the Broken Empire Trilogy of books. Having read and enjoyed the first two books immensely (Prince of Thorns and King of Thorns) I was really looking forward to this installment and had high hopes. I was not disappointed.
The story takes place a year after the second book, with Jorg on his way to the 4 yearly vote to see if a new emperor can be chosen. This time it is a vote he intends to win, whatever it takes. And with Jorg that doesn't rule out a lot of options. The reader would suspect from the first two books that he is entirely selfish in his ambitions. However we see in the now expected flashback sections that a lot more hangs in the balance than another 4 years of squabbling. Jorg is the only one aware of the peril that threatens the world, and is apparently the only one ruthless enough to avoid it.
There are plenty of set pieces and Jorg is as unpredictable, nasty and single minded as ever. There are a couple of excellent examples of Jorg style diplomacy - which naturally involves anybody disagreeing with him being efficiently killed. Somehow despite having got used to this character through the previous two novels, he still has the capacity to surprise and shock. Yes he has matured and Lawrence has done a sterling job to keep Jorg and the events he instigates fresh and interesting.
The main thread involves travelling across the Hundred Kingdoms, and is essentially one long protracted chase scene, culminating in the vote for emperor. There are some very tense scenes - it should be clear by now that anybody is expendable in Jorg's world and there is a real sense of danger in the encounters.
The 'flashback' thread occurs 5 years before and takes up the story from the flashback thread in King of Thorns. Jorg gets to see more of the world, and crucially to find out more about the mysterious Builders and their artefacts. Once again each thread unwinds and impacts on the other and each is a compelling tale in its own right.
The writing is clean and stylish, plenty of descriptions of both stunning scenery and brutal violence, each given their own space on the page without being overworked. The story moves on in both threads with real pace - there is a lot of ground to cover, both thematically and geographically but Lawrence doesn't put a foot (or word) wrong and there are the usual dashes of black humour throughout.
Overall a stunning (and perfect) end to the trilogy. It's rare to find a story that ties everything up so neatly, with threads from all three of the books coming into play. It's also refreshing to find an author who is not afraid to finish a story and not leave it open for more and more (potentially weaker) stories.
A five star end to a five star trilogy, highly recommended
The story takes place a year after the second book, with Jorg on his way to the 4 yearly vote to see if a new emperor can be chosen. This time it is a vote he intends to win, whatever it takes. And with Jorg that doesn't rule out a lot of options. The reader would suspect from the first two books that he is entirely selfish in his ambitions. However we see in the now expected flashback sections that a lot more hangs in the balance than another 4 years of squabbling. Jorg is the only one aware of the peril that threatens the world, and is apparently the only one ruthless enough to avoid it.
There are plenty of set pieces and Jorg is as unpredictable, nasty and single minded as ever. There are a couple of excellent examples of Jorg style diplomacy - which naturally involves anybody disagreeing with him being efficiently killed. Somehow despite having got used to this character through the previous two novels, he still has the capacity to surprise and shock. Yes he has matured and Lawrence has done a sterling job to keep Jorg and the events he instigates fresh and interesting.
The main thread involves travelling across the Hundred Kingdoms, and is essentially one long protracted chase scene, culminating in the vote for emperor. There are some very tense scenes - it should be clear by now that anybody is expendable in Jorg's world and there is a real sense of danger in the encounters.
The 'flashback' thread occurs 5 years before and takes up the story from the flashback thread in King of Thorns. Jorg gets to see more of the world, and crucially to find out more about the mysterious Builders and their artefacts. Once again each thread unwinds and impacts on the other and each is a compelling tale in its own right.
The writing is clean and stylish, plenty of descriptions of both stunning scenery and brutal violence, each given their own space on the page without being overworked. The story moves on in both threads with real pace - there is a lot of ground to cover, both thematically and geographically but Lawrence doesn't put a foot (or word) wrong and there are the usual dashes of black humour throughout.
Overall a stunning (and perfect) end to the trilogy. It's rare to find a story that ties everything up so neatly, with threads from all three of the books coming into play. It's also refreshing to find an author who is not afraid to finish a story and not leave it open for more and more (potentially weaker) stories.
A five star end to a five star trilogy, highly recommended
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 28, 2020
It's says a lot about this third entry into the Bad Boys franchise, when there's been a 17 year gap between movies, and it still manages to be this good!
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
The Bad Boys films are known for being over the top, sweary, violent, funny, and action packed, and thankfully, this tried and tested formula sticks again.
It's silliness is hugely toned down from the overly gratuitous Bad Boys II, (it's still pretty silly mind), and we're presented with a host of characters that actually ground the franchise a little, and it's all the better for it.
Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are once again hugely likable as detectives Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett, the chemistry between the two is still hilariously beautiful and bro-tastic after all these years.
BBFL also introduces a group of new characters, a law enforcement response team known as AMMO, who are also all pretty likable. I feel that the writers are perhaps testing the waters for a potential spin off.
The movies bad guys are drug-queen Isabel Aretas and her son Armando (Kate del Castillo and Jacob Scipio respectively) who both do a pretty good job at playing imposing and dangerous villains.
We also get some back story regarding Mike Lowrey that has never been touched on before - a possible avenue for a prequel maybe?
The action set pieces are exciting and well choreographed (best motorbike chase since John Wick 3) and directors Adil El Arbi and Bilall Fallah - taking over from Michael Bay - do a solid job of delivering a well shot action packed adventure, with just enough nods to the original duology's style.
The only criticisms I have really stem from pacing. The movie feels very staggered for much of the first half and takes a while to really kick into gear, but once it does, it's hugely entertaining.
Also, the comedy is laid on pretty thick and fast from the get go, and there were quite a few moments that didn't land, (predictably, there was plenty of too-old-for-this-shit jokes) but by the same merit, there were plenty that did.
Bad Boys For Life is overall a fun time that is pretty hard to not enjoy, and it actually might just be the best of the series, if not, then it's certainly on par with the first.
The narrative makes a good effort to set up potential directions for the franchise going forward (I counted at least three obvious set ups) but based on the strength of this entry, it something that I would actually like to see, and considering I went to the cinema content in the apparent knowledge that this would be the last one, that can only be a good thing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (2019) in Movies
May 19, 2019 (Updated May 19, 2019)
Great Fight Choreography in a very strong 3rd Chapter
The latest installment of the JOHN WICK story (titled CHAPTER 3 - PARABELLUM) is one long chase scene. It's 2 hours and 10 minutes of John Wick (Keanu Reeves) running and fighting and chasing and fighting and running again and fighting again.
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...that's just fine with me. For JOHN WICK 3 (JW3 as I'll call it from now on) is one of the finest choreographed films (fight scene-wise) that I have seen in quite a long time.
Picking up right after JOHN WICK CHAPTER 2 - JW3 follows John as he is declared "Ex-Communicado" from the underground Assassins organization that he has been a part of, then retired from, then pulled back in with a $14 million bounty on his head.
This flick kicks right into action (literally) with John and a few "red-shirt assassins" taking on each other in a hallway filled with knives. Will all these knives be used in the ensuing fight? You bet they will be - but it is how they are used - and how this scene (and all the fight scenes) are set-up, choreographed, and shot that makes this movie a strong cut above the standard fare in this sort of film.
That's because Director Chad Stahelski - a stunt man/fight coordinator for over 70 films - wisely focuses his attention on the grace, athleticism and strength of the stunts/fights and eschews the "quick-cut edit" style of fight scenes that is so en vogue these days. Stahelski keeps his camera "in place" and lets us, the audience, watch what's going on in (seemingly) long shots that are going to have you saying to yourself "how did they do that". Stahelski has helmed all 3 John Wick films thus far and I hope he helms many, many more.
You'll also be asking yourself how did 53 year old Keanu Reeves do all that fight work? It is incredible, physical work for him - and he is up to the task. John Wick is a man of few words - and much, much action - which suits the acting talents of this performer quite well.
Back for another go in the series - and having fun along the way - are Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and Lance Reddick - as colleagues, collaborators and/or foes of John Wick in this underworld. Capably joining in - with just as much a twinkle in their eyes - are Angelica Huston, Hallee Berry (in her best work in years) and Jerome Flynn (Bron from Game of Thrones). A new addition (at least to me) was the strong work brought forth by Asia Kate Dillon (TV's ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK) as "the Adjudicator" - who is monitoring the John Wick proceedings, Special mention needs to be made of the work of Mark Dacascos (TV's Iron Chef America!) as Wick's chief adversary - a strong effort (both acting-wise and physically/fighting wise) that I just didn't know this performer had in him.
A quick side-note on some animal performances here. There is a scene where a bad guy "gets it" from a horse...and I thought...how are they going to top that...and then immediately top it - GOOD FOR YOU, HORSE! And...a film has FINALLY figured out a way to use attack/guard dogs in a way that had you rooting for these four-legged, furry friends over the fiends they are attacking.
But...make no mistake about this...this film is about the fighting...and the intriguing Assassin's world that was first presented in the original (and I do mean ORIGINAL) John Wick film. I said at the time that I hoped they would expand this world, I wanted to see more of it. And...expand it they have...for the better. The world has become more intriguing to me, and I want EVEN MORE, PLEASE, of this world and of the uniquely original fight choreography that comes along with it.
This film is not for everyone - it is bloody (but in a "cartoon way"...I wouldn't say it is gory) and it is one long chase scene. But, if this is "your thing", you'll enjoy it very much.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna doÂ… this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
May 29, 2018
Surprised by how much I enjoyed this film
I have a confession to make - I was surprised by how much I enjoyed SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY.
Going into this film, I felt that this film had a few things going against it:
1). Trying to replace Harrison Ford with another actor in the title role.
2). Bringing in Ron Howard to "rescue" the film.
3). Overcoming Star Wars "fatigue" from the less than enthusiastic response to THE LAST JEDI.
And you know what? It has overcome these things - and more!
Set sometime between Episode 3 and Episode 4 (and before ROGUE ONE), SOLO is, in essence, the origin story of everyone's favorite rascal, but is told in an interesting way - as a heist/caper film.
Credit must be given to writers Lawrence Kasdan (THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and his son Jonathan Kasdan. They have developed a fast paced, twisty, back and forth con-man film disguised as a sci-fi film set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Bringing in Howard was a good, competent move, for he moves the plot along sprightly and the special effects-laden chase sequences are tightly paced - if unspectacular - but they help move the action along - and doesn't get in the way. There is no "special effects for special effects-sake" sequences and Howard's workmanlike approach works well. He lets his strong cast strut on the screen with their strong characters which is wise of him for he inherited a film sprinkled with very good talent who looked like they were having fun with their characters.
Start with Woody Harrelson as Solo's mentor. He provides a solid anchor to the proceedings. As does Emilia Clarke as Solo's best friend/love interest. She more than holds her own with Solo and Harrelson - and is as much a "rascal" as the other two.. Also providing a good turn is Paul Bettany as the main villain.
As with most Star Wars films, the "non-human" continue to be interesting. Starting with Lady Proxima (voiced by Linda Hunt), followed by Rio Durant (voiced by Jon Favreau) and the robot L3 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge), all were interesting characters, rendered well.
And...of course...there is Chewbacca (performed by Joonas Suotamo). I was thrilled to revisit the friendship between "Chewie" and Han. It was really easy to forget that you were watching a person in a Wookie costume. There is a rumor of a Chewbacca movie - and I'm all for it.
Speaking of "friendships" - this film also explores the beginnings of the HAN SOLO/LANDO CALRISSIAN friendships - and Donald Glover almost steals the movie in his portrayal of Lando. He has the swagger, debonair (and slightly feminine) attitude of the character down.
Which leads me to Alden Ehrenreich's performance as Solo. I have mentioned Harrelson...and Clarke...and Glover...and Bettany...and the CG characters...and Chewbacca...and this leaves Ehreneich's portrayal somewhat in the background. Don't get me wrong, he does a GOOD job as Solo, but - I feel - he just lacks the charisma and screen presence of the rest of them, and, of course, of Harrison Ford. He grew on me as the film progressed, but I felt he faded into the background at times - where he should have been up front.
But...this is a quibble...in a film who's energy, pace and characters really worked for me - more than I thought it would.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Going into this film, I felt that this film had a few things going against it:
1). Trying to replace Harrison Ford with another actor in the title role.
2). Bringing in Ron Howard to "rescue" the film.
3). Overcoming Star Wars "fatigue" from the less than enthusiastic response to THE LAST JEDI.
And you know what? It has overcome these things - and more!
Set sometime between Episode 3 and Episode 4 (and before ROGUE ONE), SOLO is, in essence, the origin story of everyone's favorite rascal, but is told in an interesting way - as a heist/caper film.
Credit must be given to writers Lawrence Kasdan (THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK) and his son Jonathan Kasdan. They have developed a fast paced, twisty, back and forth con-man film disguised as a sci-fi film set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.
Bringing in Howard was a good, competent move, for he moves the plot along sprightly and the special effects-laden chase sequences are tightly paced - if unspectacular - but they help move the action along - and doesn't get in the way. There is no "special effects for special effects-sake" sequences and Howard's workmanlike approach works well. He lets his strong cast strut on the screen with their strong characters which is wise of him for he inherited a film sprinkled with very good talent who looked like they were having fun with their characters.
Start with Woody Harrelson as Solo's mentor. He provides a solid anchor to the proceedings. As does Emilia Clarke as Solo's best friend/love interest. She more than holds her own with Solo and Harrelson - and is as much a "rascal" as the other two.. Also providing a good turn is Paul Bettany as the main villain.
As with most Star Wars films, the "non-human" continue to be interesting. Starting with Lady Proxima (voiced by Linda Hunt), followed by Rio Durant (voiced by Jon Favreau) and the robot L3 (voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge), all were interesting characters, rendered well.
And...of course...there is Chewbacca (performed by Joonas Suotamo). I was thrilled to revisit the friendship between "Chewie" and Han. It was really easy to forget that you were watching a person in a Wookie costume. There is a rumor of a Chewbacca movie - and I'm all for it.
Speaking of "friendships" - this film also explores the beginnings of the HAN SOLO/LANDO CALRISSIAN friendships - and Donald Glover almost steals the movie in his portrayal of Lando. He has the swagger, debonair (and slightly feminine) attitude of the character down.
Which leads me to Alden Ehrenreich's performance as Solo. I have mentioned Harrelson...and Clarke...and Glover...and Bettany...and the CG characters...and Chewbacca...and this leaves Ehreneich's portrayal somewhat in the background. Don't get me wrong, he does a GOOD job as Solo, but - I feel - he just lacks the charisma and screen presence of the rest of them, and, of course, of Harrison Ford. He grew on me as the film progressed, but I felt he faded into the background at times - where he should have been up front.
But...this is a quibble...in a film who's energy, pace and characters really worked for me - more than I thought it would.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2018
In a word - fun
By this time, either you are "in" on the Marvel Cinematic Universe or you are "out". If you are "out", there's not a whole lot that I (or any other reviewer) will be able to do to change your mind. Which is too bad, for the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a pretty fun ride. The folks at Marvel "have it down" and I can't remember the last time that I was disappointed by a Marvel movie.
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that goes for the latest installment - ANTMAN AND THE WASP.
Starring Paul Rudd and Evangaline Lilly as the titular characters, ANT-MAN AND THE WASP is the follow-up to 2015's ANT-MAN and (more directly) 2016's CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR. It also answers the question as to why these characters were not involved in the other Marvel movie this summer - AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR, Part 1.
But, like most of the Marvel films, the plot doesn't really matter, it is the characters and the situations they are put in that matter. And, in the case of this film, the word I would use for both is FUN.
Starting with bickering stars Rudd and Lilly. They do the "frenemies with a no-doubter mutual attraction" thing very well. They play off each other smartly, with Lilly's common sense, physicality and "cut the crap" attitude in vast contrast to Rudd's "man-child". Both are winning presences on the screen, with Rudd's natural charm jumping at you in places where (if it didn't) his character would seem like a jerk.
Joining in the fun is Michael Douglas as, basically, the referee for these two. He looks like he's having fun - despite himself - and really comes into his own with his character. Randall Park does a fun turn as a Federal Agent charged with keeping an eye on Rudd's character and Lawrence Fishburne brings "Morpheus-like" gravitas to his role as a fellow scientist.
But...like in the first Ant-Man film...the characters that steal the film are Michael Pena and his two dim-witted assistants, David Dastmalchian and T.I. When any one of these three (but, especially Pena) are on the screen, the maniacal, fun energy of this film rises dramatically. They had me wishing that they would have their own film to themselves. But..maybe I like them so much because they are being fed to us in very small doses.
Unfortunately, Judy Greer and Bobby Canavale (from the first film) and Walton Goggins (new to this film) don't really have enough to do - and when they are given something to do, it pales in comparison to the others - and to the action.
And what terrific action there is! Filmmaker Peyton Reed (he also Directed Ant Man) does a nice job of keeping the action simple (enough) that you always knew what was going on and playing with size (now they're BIG, now they're SMALL, now they're NORMAL size...) was used wisely to always drive the film - and the action - forward.
As with all Marvel films, this one has a place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe (a place I won't spoil here), but I was satisfied with how they dealt with this film as a stand alone, "chase" movie, yet still connected to the rest.
A good time was had.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hamilton (2020) in Movies
Jul 5, 2020
Captures the power of being in "the room where it happens"
I'll just cut to the chase, the filmed version of the mega-hit stage musical HAMILTON (now streaming on Disney+) is terrific. If you are one of the few that have not seen this, check it out - you'll be glad you did.
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?
I could go on and on about the Pulitzer-Prize winning show, the script, the music, the performances and/or the cross-cultural casting - all of which works to perfection, but what separates this film from the other hit Broadway shows that are converted to film is how well that the filmmakers were able to translate the power of being inside the theater during a live performance of this show.
Credit, of course, needs to go to the visionaries responsible for this show, creator/writer/star Lin-Manuel Miranda and Director Thomas Kail. They realized pretty early on (when the show was becoming the phenomenon that it has become) that they wanted to preserve this event for future generations, so started making plans to film the show - in High Def - with an audience and without an audience (for close-ups). In June 2016, about a month before the original cast started leaving the show (and right after the show won 11 Tony Awards), they spent $10 million to capture the show - with live audiences on Sunday and Tuesday and then spent the rest of Sunday night and all day Monday doing close-ups and crane shots to augment the action.
The results are outstanding. The wide-shots show the breadth of the production - showing the strong, Tony Award winning choreography by Andy Blankenbuehler, the unique, minimal and highly versatile set, the Tony Award winning costumes by Paul Tazewell and the Lighting Design that earned Howell Blinkley a Tony. All of these are showcased in this film - special note should be made about the Lighting that needed to be tweaked on the spot for the filming.
As for the close-ups, they showcase the wry smile and comedic delight that Tony winner Daveed Diggs shows in his roles as Lafayette/Jefferson, the power and sorrow of Tony Award winner Renee Elise Goldsberry - her spotlight number SATISFIED is as "perfect" a musical number as you will ever see. The powerful acting of Leslie Odom, Jr. as Aaron Burr (who won the Tony as Best Actor over Lin-Manuel's performance as Hamilton) as well as terrific supporting turns by the likes of Anthony Ramos (Lawrence/Phillip), Chris Jackson (showing real leadership as George Washington) and Okieriete Onaodwoan as Hercules Mulligan (one of my absolute favorite characters in this show)./James Madison.
Special note should be made to Jonathan Groff's portrayal of King George III - it is, basically, a cameo role, but he is filmed with such tight close-ups (showing spittle rolling down has chin as he sings) that marvelously juxtaposes King George's real emotions with that of the words he is speaking.
But, of course, the real star is Lin-Manuel Miranda - the genius creative force behind Hamilton. Interestingly enough, I thought his performance was the weakest of the lead cast (don't get me wrong, he was still excellent - just not "as excellent" as some of the others). His true vision, of course, was to tell the story of "the people of that era" as told by "the people of our era".
That is the true genius of Hamilton.
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars out of 10 (can I turn this up to 11)?