Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Original Romantic Action Film
An unlikely pair fall in love and find themselves on the run with a luggage full of cocaine.
Acting: 10
True Romance is littered with star power and each of them deliver. With a who's who of Hollywood actors and actresses it's no surprise that even the supporting roles left you with something to remember. The late James Gandolfini was my personal favorite playing the role of Virgil. He's a brooding gangster who looks like he's about to snap in every single scene that he's in. You hate him, yet you appreciate his ruthlessness at the same time.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a very intriguing start in its first ten minutes. Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) and Alabama Whitman (Patricia Arquette) get off to a fast start that ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the film. You're given a small taste of what's to come which makes you want more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
My wife and I went back and forth on this. She thought the ending was improbable. I thought that, considering the rest of the movie as a whole, the ending was exactly what it needed to be. Their entire relationship was improbable so the insanity of how the movie concludes was the improbable cherry on top. Well done.
Overall: 96
True Romance is one of those films you don't expect to like, then you end up loving it. The awesome gun battle at the end is not only absolute bedlam, but it one of those scenes you remember for a long time. You won't forget it, nor will you forget Christopher Walken's intense interrogation scene. I can see now why this film made an all-time Top 100 list.
Acting: 10
True Romance is littered with star power and each of them deliver. With a who's who of Hollywood actors and actresses it's no surprise that even the supporting roles left you with something to remember. The late James Gandolfini was my personal favorite playing the role of Virgil. He's a brooding gangster who looks like he's about to snap in every single scene that he's in. You hate him, yet you appreciate his ruthlessness at the same time.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a very intriguing start in its first ten minutes. Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) and Alabama Whitman (Patricia Arquette) get off to a fast start that ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the film. You're given a small taste of what's to come which makes you want more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
My wife and I went back and forth on this. She thought the ending was improbable. I thought that, considering the rest of the movie as a whole, the ending was exactly what it needed to be. Their entire relationship was improbable so the insanity of how the movie concludes was the improbable cherry on top. Well done.
Overall: 96
True Romance is one of those films you don't expect to like, then you end up loving it. The awesome gun battle at the end is not only absolute bedlam, but it one of those scenes you remember for a long time. You won't forget it, nor will you forget Christopher Walken's intense interrogation scene. I can see now why this film made an all-time Top 100 list.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alone in the Dark (2005) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: I am going to first look at this only as a story, no opinions on the CGI or casting choices. If you were to look at the story as a solo idea you get a solid action horror. Now I hear people going ‘no its just crap’ so let’s look at the details. First off we have an idea of scientific experiment on children to create sleepers, but something goes wrong so we don’t see why it happened until more discoveries in the future. Then we have a search for hidden treasures of a lost ancient people. Add in a paranormal investigator, a secret government paranormal investigating team and the search for a truth. Now looking at those factors we should have a good story not special but enjoyable. Now with terrible casting decisions, awful CGI and a script that could have been written but a child everything goes south fast. As an idea for a story this is good, but as an execution of a story it’s bad. (5/10)
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Actor Review
Christian Slater: Edward Carnby a paranormal investigator who has been trying to uncover the truth about his childhood, this puts him in danger as this time he has got closer than ever before. He must team up with his old organisation to final uncover the truth that has lost him the memories of his childhood. Slater strolls for this role without showing any of the skills that made him a star in the early 90s. (5/10)
slater
Tara Reid: Aline Cedrac assistant curator at the museum who also happens to be Edward’s girlfriend, she gets caught up in the middle of the battle after she uncover the location of the door. Going to take a deep breath before going for this one, just no how did this happen? Try your luck in romantic comedies. (2/10)
reid
Stephen Dorff: Commander Burke leader of a military team trying to keep the monsters away from the public, old partner of Edward but after seeing the truth he teams up with them to uncover the truth. Stephen can act and has proven it many times, just need to give him something to work with. (4/10)
dorff
Frank C Turner: Sam an old connection within the organisation that still communicates with Edward, he fills in the science gaps and you can guess what happens to him by the end. Basic supporting performance. (4/10)
fisher
Matthew Walker: Professor Hudgens scientist trying to open the door to the truth about the ancient people, he will do anything to get his answers including sacrificing anybody who gets in his way. As villains go this is generic one that doesn’t need too much to make them special. (4/10)
profes
Director Review: Uwe Boll – He not only managed to mess up a relatively easy story with awful CGI and lack of directing ideas. (2/10)
Action: Plenty of guns being fired, not sure if they ever hit anything as everything is in the pitch black. (3/10)
Horror: Doesn’t give you any scares, frights, well made with the acting. (1/10)
Settings: The settings used for the gun fights are used well, because they would make real settings for such a discover if someone wanted to keep it quiet. (6/10)
Special Effects: Terrible special effects that I only saw one good one and that was a soldier’s head split in two. (1/10)
Suggestion: I think if you are bored one night and this is on it would be acceptable to watch it as it slips close to the line of so bad you have to see. (Late Night TV)
Best Part: The idea
Worst Part: The CGI, Acting and Execution of the idea.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Actually has one sequel
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $10 Million
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Can mankind defeat the army of darkness unleashed by an ancient evil cult?
Overall: Not only did this film destroy the source material, it ruined any chance the video game had of returning.
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/11/09/alone-in-the-dark-2005/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Star Trek VI - The Undiscovered Country (1991) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Star Trek is not bloody Shakespeare” – – I’m sure someone has said that at some point (probably, my wife!). But here, it is! The late Christopher Plummer comes roaring into the series joyfully quoting the great bard (from the original Klingon version!).
Trek got firmly back in the fast lane again with this movie. The fun was back! David Warner becomes the only character to date to appear in two consecutive Trek films as different characters (with curiously Michael Dorn becoming the next – see below!). He gets a meatier part this time though. But he – and indeed everyone else – is upstaged by Plummer’s marvellously over-the-top performance.
Iman is memorable as a cigar-smoking shape-shifting alien, leading to some wonderful Kirk-on-Kirk action, and the delivery of one of the best lines of comedy in the series: surprisingly self-deprecating for the normally ego-centric Shatner. There’s also a welcome call-back to the ‘Kirk gets the girl’ joke of the original series, which you realise, with a shock, has been completely missing from all of the previous movie outings.
There are also a nice range of cameo appearances in here. Christian Slater – a lifelong Trek-fan – has a bit part: apparently he framed, rather than cashed, his cheque! And Michael Dorn – already playing Worf in “The Next Generation”, and to appear as Worf in the next movie – plays Worf’s grandfather, a Klingon defence attorney!
But my favourite piece of trivia relates to a completely different film. Al Pacino was filming “Frankie and Johnny” in the studio at the same time, and a scene (sadly cut from the final film) called for Pacino to look surprised after opening a door. So director Garry Marshall arranged for Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley in full Star Trek costume, to be standing behind the door when he opened it. (Garry Marshall quote here). Love it!
Trek got firmly back in the fast lane again with this movie. The fun was back! David Warner becomes the only character to date to appear in two consecutive Trek films as different characters (with curiously Michael Dorn becoming the next – see below!). He gets a meatier part this time though. But he – and indeed everyone else – is upstaged by Plummer’s marvellously over-the-top performance.
Iman is memorable as a cigar-smoking shape-shifting alien, leading to some wonderful Kirk-on-Kirk action, and the delivery of one of the best lines of comedy in the series: surprisingly self-deprecating for the normally ego-centric Shatner. There’s also a welcome call-back to the ‘Kirk gets the girl’ joke of the original series, which you realise, with a shock, has been completely missing from all of the previous movie outings.
There are also a nice range of cameo appearances in here. Christian Slater – a lifelong Trek-fan – has a bit part: apparently he framed, rather than cashed, his cheque! And Michael Dorn – already playing Worf in “The Next Generation”, and to appear as Worf in the next movie – plays Worf’s grandfather, a Klingon defence attorney!
But my favourite piece of trivia relates to a completely different film. Al Pacino was filming “Frankie and Johnny” in the studio at the same time, and a scene (sadly cut from the final film) called for Pacino to look surprised after opening a door. So director Garry Marshall arranged for Shatner, Nimoy and Kelley in full Star Trek costume, to be standing behind the door when he opened it. (Garry Marshall quote here). Love it!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2019
Well acted by Close AND Pryce
The buzz is getting louder and louder for Glenn Close, her Oscar chances and her work in Bjorn Runge's adaption of Meg Wolitzer's novel, THE WIFE. So, as an Oscar completest, I knew I needed to catch this film, and I'm glad I did.
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But not for the performance we've all heard about.
Close stars as Joan Castleman the wife of Best-Selling Author Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce) who, early in the film, is notified that he has won the Pulitzer Prize for Literature. The film spans the time that the Castleman's head to Stockholm for the Pulitzer celebration and long held secrets come out.
Glenn Close will win the Best Lead Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Castleman, and it is a wonderful performance, not so much for what she says and does, but more so for what she doesn't say and reacts to. There is a lot of emotion and power going on in her facial and physical performance and she is, rightfully, being hailed for this work as the culmination of her career. And, make no mistake about it, her Oscar win will be a "Lifetime Achievement Award" capping Oscar, but as far as these types of Oscar awards go, this performance is deserving enough of the recognition, that if her lifetime of work is what lifts Close to this Oscar, I am fine with that.
What I am not fine with is the omission of Jonathan Pryce's performance at Awards time for portraying the author, Joe Castleman. It takes two to tango and Pryce and Close tango very well together. They spend 85% of the film on screen together and, while I stated that Close's performance was mostly reaction and facial, she had to react to something - and that something is Pryce. His author is pretentious, loud, self-serving and egotistical and is played strongly and surely by Pryce - never overplaying his hand to make his character a caricature, but trods the fine line between these two things well and is just as strong as Close in what, could be argued, is the lead role in this film (though, I get it, the movie is called THE WIFE not THE AUTHOR).
Also showing up in this film is Christian Slater as a would-be Biographer for Castleman, who threatens to expose the secret that this couple is sharing. I know Slater has been doing television (most notably MR. ROBOT) but his was a welcome presence and I would love to see more of him on the big screen.
It is good that the acting performances are so good in this film, for there really is not that much more to it. It is a slow, plodding, serious tome of a film, one that takes itself VERY seriously, so prepare yourself for that. This film could easily be converted into a stage play - and I would bet that it will be at some point. Fortunately, the run time if thee film is fairly short, 1 hour 40 minutes - but the pacing and the lingering shots on Close's facial expressions will make it seem closer to 2 hours. I'll let you decide whether or not it's a good thing.
Come to THE WIFE to catch Glenn Close's Oscar winning performance, but stay for Jonathan Pryce's under-rated, just as good performance.
Letter Grade: B (A for the acting, C for the pacing)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
May 30, 2018
I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Contains spoilers, click to show
The film was written by Quentin Tarantino, and it really shows with the sharp dialogue and crazy plot. The film centres around Clarence (Christian Slater) who meets and marries Alabama (Patricia Arquette). After Clarence goes to get Alabama's belongings, through a series of mishaps, he ends up with suitcase of coke and they decide to sell it. This leads to a wild adventure involving drug dealers, police and movie executives.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
The casting in this film is amazing with Hollywood greats turning up and each one adds something special to the film. But by far the best performance is by Brad Pitt as the roommate of Clarence's friend Dick. He is on screen for a total of about 5 minutes but steals every scene he is in. However every one of the characters in the film brings something special. The performances by Hollywood greats, including Dennis Hopper, Christopher Walken and Gary Oldman all come so close to being over the top, but the incredible script and brilliant directing manage to hold back just enough to stop it going too far.
This film is a true masterpiece where everything just falls in to place. The film is not for the faint of heart though. There are very graphic scenes of violence. One particular scene involving a woman getting severely beaten. The perpetrator definitely gets his comeuppance though. While the violence is very graphic, as with most of Tarantino's films, it is very bloody but also portrayed in a realistic manor. This adds to the shock and also to bring you closer to the victims.
I cannot praise this film enough. It is one of the greats that has been overlooked by many including Hollywood. Almost all of the performances are worthy of Oscar nomination, as with the script. But this film was overlooked by all the major awards.
If you are a fan of Tarantino films, or films with a good cast and great story give this film a try. I know people that hate this film, but I know far more that love it.
Katie (868 KP) May 30, 2018
Phillip McSween (751 KP) May 30, 2018