Search
Search results
Paige (428 KP) rated Basquiat (1996) in Movies
Jul 28, 2017
A little known must-see.
Biopic about the graffiti artist turned art superstar Jean-Michel Basquiat, and directed by his real life friend and fellow artist Julian Schnabel.
Basquiat was sort of an artist's artist- if you talk to anyone in fine arts they generally love his work- but not so well loved by those outside this world. That said, his life story is amazing for even those who don't actually like the work.
This movie is star-studded, especially for an indie film- and even the lesser known actors (at the time...some have gotten really famous after this movie) are really powerful.
The visuals are wonderful, as befits a painter-turned -director. (And Mr.Schnabel is a real renaissance man, anyway)
Superfantastic!
Basquiat was sort of an artist's artist- if you talk to anyone in fine arts they generally love his work- but not so well loved by those outside this world. That said, his life story is amazing for even those who don't actually like the work.
This movie is star-studded, especially for an indie film- and even the lesser known actors (at the time...some have gotten really famous after this movie) are really powerful.
The visuals are wonderful, as befits a painter-turned -director. (And Mr.Schnabel is a real renaissance man, anyway)
Superfantastic!
David McK (3422 KP) rated Batman: The Long Halloween in Books
Jan 30, 2019
Of all the Superhero's around, I personally think that Batman has the best Rogue's gallery of villains: Superman, for instance, has Lex Luthor And (to a lesser extent) General Zod, while Spiderman has, what, Green Goblin? Dr Octopus? Venom?
Batman, on the other hand (and purely off the top of my head): The Joker. The Penguin. Poison Ivy. The Riddler. Catwoman (on/off as a villain). Scarecrow. Bane. And Two-Face.
Admittedly, some of those characters are now more famous than they used to be before due to the various Batman films, with the last four (And the first) mentioned in my list all appearing in the more-recent Christopher Nolan 'Dark Knight' series of Batman films. Of that trilogy, the second movie concerned itself principally with two main villains: The Joker, and Harvey Dent (aka Two-Face) and, in particular, the circumstances that led District Attorney Dent to become Two-Face.
Those circumstances are also the subject of this graphic novel, which also has a foreword/introduction by the director and writer of 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, in which they acknowledge the huge debt their movie owes to this novel.
This is also commonly cited as one of the better Batman stories, and is set during the early days of Batman's crusade against criminality in Gotham - there's no Robin here, nor Oracle (well, there is, but only as a baby), for instance.
As such, it makes a good intro (IMO) into the Batman mythos, not far behind the futuristic The Dark Knight Returns or the early-set Year One.
Batman, on the other hand (and purely off the top of my head): The Joker. The Penguin. Poison Ivy. The Riddler. Catwoman (on/off as a villain). Scarecrow. Bane. And Two-Face.
Admittedly, some of those characters are now more famous than they used to be before due to the various Batman films, with the last four (And the first) mentioned in my list all appearing in the more-recent Christopher Nolan 'Dark Knight' series of Batman films. Of that trilogy, the second movie concerned itself principally with two main villains: The Joker, and Harvey Dent (aka Two-Face) and, in particular, the circumstances that led District Attorney Dent to become Two-Face.
Those circumstances are also the subject of this graphic novel, which also has a foreword/introduction by the director and writer of 'The Dark Knight', Christopher Nolan and David Goyer, in which they acknowledge the huge debt their movie owes to this novel.
This is also commonly cited as one of the better Batman stories, and is set during the early days of Batman's crusade against criminality in Gotham - there's no Robin here, nor Oracle (well, there is, but only as a baby), for instance.
As such, it makes a good intro (IMO) into the Batman mythos, not far behind the futuristic The Dark Knight Returns or the early-set Year One.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 300 (2007) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There's a few Zack Snyder films that I genuinely like, and 300 is one of them. It's 100% style over substance, it's overly gratuitous in the sheer amount of slow motion, but it's pretty enjoyable.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
Some of the shots are expertly crafted recreations of the graphic novel by Frank Miller and Lynn Varley, and as such, is a damn faithful adaption of a cult classic comic series.
The visual effects are stunning at times, and the sepia tone it's draped in lends a lot to its overall feel (even if it's a subject of criticism from many)
Gerard Butler takes the lead as King Leonidas of Sparta, in what has arguably become his most well known roll in the years following. It's easy to look over his thick Scottish accent (in ancient Greece...) when he's playing the character with such enthusiasm. Most of his lines have become highly quotable, even familiar to those who have never seen the film. 300 would be a much lesser film without his involvement.
Rodrigo Santoro carves a striking figure as primary antagonist Xerxes, his androgynous look and demonic-like voice providing a memorable villain.
The cast is rounded out by the likes of Lena Headey, David Wenham, Dominic West, and an early role for Michael Fassbender, a sturdy ensemble cast.
The set pieces are pretty thrilling, and results in a movie that blurs the fantastical, with a real life historic battle. It's an interesting mix that works well.
300 is a film that throws big sloppy buckets of testosterone at its audience, whilst simultaneously flaunting a silly amount of homoerotic undertones and CGI pectoral muscles, and it's great.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated An American Werewolf in London (1981) in Movies
Jun 4, 2017
Steps away from most of the stereotypes (2 more)
Comedic Horror
Great practical effects for the time, even better than some modern day films
One of the classic Werewolf Films that any horror fan should watch
An American Werewolf in London should always be apart of any Werewolf film or horror film Fan's collection. It's comedic, yes, but it's still a great horror as well especially for it's time.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
The cast isn't full of big Hollywood names, but that's what makes this film so good. You don't expect anything from the cast so the film shows you something like you've never seen. Though there are a few cast members that have big names such as Rik Mayall (R.I.P), but he isn't a main cast member, and serves only as a background character in a pub.
The story of two Americans, on a tour of England, with some comedic humour towards the atmosphere of England as we begin the film in the countryside. David's friend complains about the weather, whilst David himself is enjoying his time being out in the open.
The films practical effects are incredible, from the large wolf itself to the actual transformation, which sees limbs being extended into unnatural form, and David's mouth extending into a about, using only practical effects and no CGI. This is what makes this film so damn good!
The soundtrack is one of the cheeriest IV heard for a horror film as it contains multiple versions of the classic song Blue Moon, as well as Creedance Clearwater Revival's classic song Bad Moon Rising. Which eases some of the horror but not by much.
The film also differs from other werewolf films as it mocks the supernatural myth elements such as silver bullets, but includes some of the lesser known myths about the pre-transformation period such as the bizarre nightmares which often involve the cursed being to see themselves naked in a woods stalking and sometimes eating an animal raw, often deer or rabbit, and this film includes that as well as another very bizarre nightmare involving Nazi Demons.
The other great aspect to this film is the appearance of Dave's dead friend throughout the film, as we discover he is trapped in purgatory unable to pass on until the curse is lifted (a.k.a David needs to die). It's not the fact that Jack appears though that makes this element of the film incredible, it's the way he looks when he appears. Everytime Jack shows up, his body is more and more decayed and he becomes very zombiefied during our last encounter with him in the film, and the practical effects and makeup truly add to the grim reality of this aspect. The makeup was so grim in fact, that Griffin Dunne, who portrays Jack, wasn't overly pleased that this gruesome makeup would mean that his mother wouldn't be able to watch the film because it was that horrifying. There were even pieces of dangling rotten flesh, which was accidental but left in because it looked more realistic.
The film is funny, it's gripping and it's horrifying as we watch the beast stalk the people of London and then the next morning, we see a normal man and as we begin to watch him lose his mind, we sympathise for him.
Highly recommend this to any horror fan of you haven't seen it already, and if you haven't...why not? It's brilliantly written and brilliantly directed by the amazing John Landis.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“In to Africa”.
I managed to miss this film when it was first shown at the end of 2016. And what a shame as it would have UNDOUBTEDLY made my “Films of the Year” list.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2020
"Funner" than I expected
BLOODSHOT was one of those movies that I was going to "get around to see, sometime" before it left the movie theaters, little did I know that I would leave the movie theaters before Bloodshot did. So, when I ran across it On-Demand at home, I figured I would check it out - probably to let it run in the background as I multi-tasked.
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)