Search
Broadchurch
8.4
Rate It
TV Show Watch
Academy Award nominee Marianne Jean-Baptiste and legendary actress Charlotte Rampling star alongside...
Prison Break - Season 3
6.9
Rate It
TV Season
Season 3 follows both brothers: Michael imprisoned inside Sona and Lincoln on the outside in Panama....
The Museum of Curiosity: 24 Episodes of the Popular BBC Radio 4 Comedy Panel Game: Series 1-4
Full Cast, Richard Turner, John Lloyd and Dan Schreiber
6.0
Rate It
Book
The Museum of Curiosity is BBC Radio 4's monumental comedy edifice, and the only one with gargoyles...
CB
Comic Book Fever: A Celebration of Comics, 1976-1986: A Celebration of Comics: 1976-1986
Neal Adams, Jack Kirby, Alex Ross and Frank Miller
Book
GEORGE?KHOURY?(author of The Extraordinary Works of Alan Moore and Kimota:?The Miracleman?Companion)...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Uncle Drew (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
After spending his life savings to enter the Rucker Classic street ball tournament in Harlem, Dax (Lil Rel Howery) loses his team his team, girlfriend, and home to his longtime rival (Nick Kroll). Seeking to turn things around and win the $100,000 cash prize, Dax stumbles upon the legend of streetball, Uncle Drew (Kyrie Irving) and convinces him to return to the court one more time. The two men embark on a road trip to round up Drew’s old basketball squad (Shaquille O’Neal, Chris Webber, Reggie Miller, and Nate Robinson) to take on a new generation of ballers and redeem their legacy.
There have been countless sports films that have used basketball as a backdrop. Uncle Drew takes many of the charming and humorous elements of films like Like Mike, White Men Can’t Jump, He Got Game, and more to make a film that attempts to wedge itself into the genre instead of simply being a marketing gimmick that has been dragged out longer than it should be. Although the story is very shallow, and the plot is very predictable, the point of the movie is to showcase love and friendship. The film demonstrates that sport is a way to connect people across racial lines, economic class, and across borders. Despite its weaknesses, it brings fans together for ninety minutes to laugh and enjoy the antics of a group of senior citizens and one outcast looking for redemption and a home.
There have been countless sports films that have used basketball as a backdrop. Uncle Drew takes many of the charming and humorous elements of films like Like Mike, White Men Can’t Jump, He Got Game, and more to make a film that attempts to wedge itself into the genre instead of simply being a marketing gimmick that has been dragged out longer than it should be. Although the story is very shallow, and the plot is very predictable, the point of the movie is to showcase love and friendship. The film demonstrates that sport is a way to connect people across racial lines, economic class, and across borders. Despite its weaknesses, it brings fans together for ninety minutes to laugh and enjoy the antics of a group of senior citizens and one outcast looking for redemption and a home.
Prison Break - Season 4
6.3
Rate It
TV Season
The major storyline for the fourth season concerns a team recruited by Homeland Security agent Don...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010) in Movies
Dec 30, 2020
Just when it seemed that these movies were getting slightly better each time, along comes Afterlife to extinguish whatever tiny flame of hope was still flickering.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
Paul W.S. Anderson is back at the helm (joy to the world) it's clear that his main intention is to make Milla Jovovich look as "cool" as possible, quipping at every chance given to her. The opening sequence is sort of entertaining, but the over abundance of signature Anderson misplaced arrogant smugness and shoddy CGI violently soils anything positive.
The main bulk of the film is actually a fairly stripped back affair. It's low on scares as per, but I'm not mad at the more grounded feel to proceedings. Just a group of survivors surrounded by zombies, trying to find a solution to their problems. However, this respectable approach to the narrative is squandered. None of the characters are worth caring about, and the few that are, are given no development, as they go through the motions with the smartass-yet-boring script.
In terms of game connections, Ali Larter is back as Claire Redfield, and Wentworth Miller plays Chris Redfield. Kind of cool, of course, but he honestly could have just been playing a dude with a gun. The fact that he is Chris bears no importance to the film. Wesker is there as well but eh. The Majini infected from Resident Evil 5 are present as is The Executioner from the same game. They visually look pretty decent, and unlike previous films, aren't humanised like Nemesis and Tyrant were, so points for that.
The main issue then is all the action. Apart from the dodgy CGI, the set pieces suffer from a truly horrendous amount of slow motion. Not even exaggerating here, if there was no slow motion, the runtime would have been 20 minutes shorter. It's honestly painful. There's also a lot of gimmicky 3D shit being thrown at the camera which I don't really care for - there's just nothing exciting going on.
I'm not sure where else to mention this so I'll put it here, there's not 1, not 2, but 3 seperate scenes that consist of overhead shots of Alice flying a plane with edgy breakbeat music blaring out over it. (Not being chased or anything, just flying and relaxing) Make of that what you will, but basically, everything I hated about the first Resident Evil is still accounted for 8 years later. It's still poorly imitating The Matrix, 11 years later.
I know that these films have a lot of fans, so maybe I'm missing something and being overly spiteful, but I just find them mind numbingly shit. Maybe something will click for me during the last two, but as it stands, Afterlife is the worst of the bunch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated A Wrinkle in Time (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The classic children’s book A Wrinkle In Time has come to the big screen with a big-budget presentation under the direction of noted Director Ava DuVernay.
The story had been adapted prior in a 2003 television movie but this time out the scope is much larger as are the names associated with it.
The story follows a young girl named Meg (Storm Reid), who has withdrawn following the disappearance of her father (Chris Pine), four years earlier. Her brilliant adopted brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) is very protective of Meg and wants to help ease the suffering she has endured over the loss of their father.
Enter the quirky Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspon), who Charles Wallace has been talking to unbeknownst to his family who in turn seem taken aback by her arrival and strange nature. Charles Wallace soon introduces his sister and schoolmate Calvin (Levi Miller), to Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), who also shares some unusual quirks as well. With the arrival of the final piece in Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), the children are whisked away to another planet on a search to find the missing father and help restore light to the universe from a dark threat that endangers the universe.
What follows is a series of adventures, quirky characters, and bright visuals as the children and mysterious strangers embark on a grand adventure.
The cast is very appealing but I would love to know if the three stars filmed their scenes at the same time as it did appear at times if they were added in post-production as they did not seem to have much direct interactions with one another. The film does tackle some deep and at times dark subject matter which may be a bit much for younger viewers. One would think that Quantum Entanglements and folding space would be subjects more likely found in Star Trek vs a family film but the film does have some good messages and themes which are essential for younger viewers to note.
The film moves at a deliberate pace and does not erupt into overblown action sequences so viewers expecting a rousing action/adventure will need to temper their expectations.
For those looking for a film with an empowering message aimed at younger viewers, than “A Wrinkle in Time”, may be just the thing for an enjoyable family outing to the local cinema.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/07/a-wrinkle-in-time/
The story had been adapted prior in a 2003 television movie but this time out the scope is much larger as are the names associated with it.
The story follows a young girl named Meg (Storm Reid), who has withdrawn following the disappearance of her father (Chris Pine), four years earlier. Her brilliant adopted brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) is very protective of Meg and wants to help ease the suffering she has endured over the loss of their father.
Enter the quirky Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspon), who Charles Wallace has been talking to unbeknownst to his family who in turn seem taken aback by her arrival and strange nature. Charles Wallace soon introduces his sister and schoolmate Calvin (Levi Miller), to Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling), who also shares some unusual quirks as well. With the arrival of the final piece in Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), the children are whisked away to another planet on a search to find the missing father and help restore light to the universe from a dark threat that endangers the universe.
What follows is a series of adventures, quirky characters, and bright visuals as the children and mysterious strangers embark on a grand adventure.
The cast is very appealing but I would love to know if the three stars filmed their scenes at the same time as it did appear at times if they were added in post-production as they did not seem to have much direct interactions with one another. The film does tackle some deep and at times dark subject matter which may be a bit much for younger viewers. One would think that Quantum Entanglements and folding space would be subjects more likely found in Star Trek vs a family film but the film does have some good messages and themes which are essential for younger viewers to note.
The film moves at a deliberate pace and does not erupt into overblown action sequences so viewers expecting a rousing action/adventure will need to temper their expectations.
For those looking for a film with an empowering message aimed at younger viewers, than “A Wrinkle in Time”, may be just the thing for an enjoyable family outing to the local cinema.
http://sknr.net/2018/03/07/a-wrinkle-in-time/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Live By Night (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sleep by day…”.
Ben Affleck’s new movie could best be described as “sprawling”. In both directing and writing the screenplay (based on a novel by Dennis Lehane), Affleck has aimed for a “Godfather” style gangster epic and missed: not missed by a country mile, but missed nonetheless.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
Morally bankrupted by his experiences in the trenches, Joe Coughlin (Affleck) returns to Boston to pick and choose which social rules he wants to follow. Not sociopathic per se, as he has a strong personal code of conduct, but Coughlin turns to robbery walking a delicate path between the warring mob factions of the Irish community, led by Albert White (the excellent Robert Glenister from TV’s “Hustle”), and the Italian community, led by Maso Pescatore (Remo Girone). Trying to keep him out of jail is his father (“Harry Potter”’s Brendan Gleeson) who – usefully – is the Deputy Police Chief. Life gets complicated when he falls in love with White’s moll, Emma Gould (Sienna Miller). The scene is set for a drama stretching from Boston to the hot and steamy Everglades over a period of the next twenty years.
Although a watchable popcorn film, the choppy episodic nature of the movie is hugely frustrating, with no compelling story arc to glue all of the disparate parts together. The (often very violent) action scenes are very well done and exciting but as a viewer you don’t feel invested in a ‘journey’ from the beginning of the film to the (unsatisfactory) ending. In my experience it’s never a good sign when the writer considers it necessary to add a voiceover to the soundtrack, and here Affleck mutters truisms about his thoughts and motives that irritate more than illuminate.
The sheer volume of players in the piece (there are about three film’s worth in here) and the resulting minimal screen time given to each allows no time for character development. Unfortunately the result is that you really care very little about whether people live or die and big plot developments land as rather an “oh” than an “OH!”.
Affleck puts in a great turn as the autistic central character whose condition results in a cold, calculating demeanor and a complete lack of emotion reflecting on his face. Oh, hang on… no, wait a minute… sorry… I’ve got the wrong film…. I’m thinking about “The Accountant”. I don’t know whether he filmed these films in parallel. I generally enjoy Ben Affleck’s work (he was excellent in “The Town”) but for 95% of this film his part could have been completed by a burly extra with an Affleck mask on. In terms of acting range, his facial muscles barely get to a “2” on the scale. Given the double problem that he is barely credible as the “young man” returning mentally wounded from the trenches, then in my opinion he would have been better to have focused on the writing and directing and found a lead of the likes of an Andrew Garfield to fill Coughlin’s shoes.
That’s not to say there is not some good acting present in the rest of the cast’s all too brief supporting roles. Elle Fanning (“Trumbo”, “Maleficent”) in particular shines as the Southern belle Loretta Figgis: a religious zealot driving her police chief father (Chris Cooper, “The Bourne Identity”) to distraction. Cooper also delivers a star turn as the moral but pragmatic law-man.
Sienna Miller (“Foxcatcher”) delivers a passable Cork accent and does her best to develop some believable chemistry with the rock-like Affleck. Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek”) is equally effective as a Cuban humanitarian.
In summary, it’s sprawlingly watchable… but overall a disappointment, with Affleck over-reaching. One day we surely will get a gangster film the likes of another “Godfather”, “Goodfellas” or “Untouchables”. Although this has its moments, unfortunately it’s more towards the “Public Enemies” end of the genre spectrum.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.