Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lost Angel in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book had almost too much going on, with an extensive glossary in the beginning pages - complete with color photos - that I needed to read beforehand to keep up with the plot. Javier Sierra made a point of mixing fact with fiction in this novel, and the book reads like an extensive 'conspiracy theory.' My husband is much more familiar with many aspects of the plot, and I often asked him if what I was reading about was really true or not. The book opens with a quotation of Genesis 6: 2-3, which states "...the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And the Lord said, 'My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.'" This is followed by a quote from John Dee, who figures prominently in the plot, though I did not find the quote to be especially inspiring.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
The main focus of the book is about a group of people who consider themselves descendants of those angels that joined with "the daughters of man," and want to find a way to get back into heaven. They will use any means necessary to accomplish this -- murder, deceit, even putting the whole planet in jeopardy.
The main character, Julia Alvarez, is a psychic who is completely duped by their antics. I understand that the author means for the reader to feel sympathy for the angelic descendants through Julia's narration, but the way that Julia allows herself to be used and deceived by even her own husband disgusts me. She believes whatever they tell her and does not question anything. In fact, anyone that does question this main family is characterized as foolish and forgettable, such as Ellen Watson and Inspector Figueiras.
There was one main problem I had with the plot, which is that in the Bible, the angels that mate with human women are 'fallen' because they disobeyed God, which is never addressed. What is also never addressed is any scriptural substantiation for what they believed about Noah and the ark. They believed they could force God to take them back into heaven with their thrown-together mish-mash of technology. How is that believable? God kicked the angels out - they certainly can't force their way back in! Not to mention, this family does not back up their belief that they are descendants of angels with actual scientific proof, such as DNA tests, even though they all claim to be men (and woman) of science.
Overall, the book twists a blasphemous tale of Biblical scripture, using factual information to support a fictitious plot. It has suspense, intrigue, and even a bit of romance, but the end is neither believable nor enjoyable. While books of this nature became popular thanks to the works of Dan Brown, (yes, I've read his stuff, too), I found this book to be merely an okay read.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Somewhat misleading but thrilling nonetheless
It’s best to start off this review as honest as possible. If you’re expecting a fully-fledged sequel or even a prequel to Matt Reeves’ brilliant monster horror, Cloverfield in 10 Cloverfield Lane, you’ll be very disappointed.
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
But, if you’re expecting a superbly written, well-acted and claustrophobic thriller, then this is definitely the film for you. Dan Trachtenberg, who makes his directorial debut with this feature, has crafted a taut film that has no real connection with the 2008 hit. So is it as good?
10 Cloverfield Lane follows Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) as she embarks on a new chapter in her life after a break-up. Unfortunately, a car crash leaves her seriously injured and unconscious. After waking up in an underground bunker, she meets her saviour in Howard (John Goodman), and as the story progresses, Michelle and fellow resident Emmett, try to make a bid for freedom.
The performances by the cast of three are terrific with Winstead coming on leaps and bounds since her role in Final Destination 3 and John Goodman is absolutely incredible. Cloverfield utilised its monster very well, but Goodman is more than a match with a simple shaking of his fists – his booming voice and burly frame mean he was a perfect casting choice and a human as psychotic as Howard is infinitely more terrifying to me than any monster.
It’s all very Hitchcockian, claustrophobic and exceptionally tense. Director Dan Trachtenberg has a real eye for the smaller details and the underground bunker setting is the perfect location to craft this kind of film. The use of jagged camera angles and low shots help aid the enclosed feeling and you can’t help but become panicked with Michelle, as she desperately tries to figure out a way to freedom.
After the bloated mess of London Has Fallen and the overlong Allegiant, it’s nice to see a film that doesn’t dwell more than it needs to. At 103 minutes, 10 Cloverfield Lane is relatively short and all the better for it. Despite only having three characters and being confined to a few small rooms for the majority of the running time, it never drags or becomes dull.
Unfortunately, the final third unravels a little of this good work, coming across like the ending to a completely different film; but Trachtenberg’s ideas and reasoning behind the finale are clear throughout, despite the lack of connection to the two acts that preceded it.
Overall, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a smart and well-thought out thriller that is related to Cloverfield in name only. That’s no bad thing, as the film we are left with is one of the best directorial debuts in years, even though its muddled ending leaves somewhat of a sour taste.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/03/20/somewhat-misleading-but-thrilling-nonetheless-10-cloverfield-lane-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Can You Ever Forgive Me? (2018) in Movies
Nov 11, 2018
Strong performances eleveates this "Art House" film.
With not a whole lot of interest filling out the screens at the multi-plexes at this time, I thought I'd head to the "Art House" to check out Melissa McCarthy in CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME? This film is garnering strong Oscar buzz for McCarthy's performance and I figured I'd see for myself.
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...darn it all...after a slow start, it does turn into an Oscar worthy performance, after all.
Telling the true tale of writer Lee Israel (based on her memoir), CYEFM tells the story of Israel's descent into criminal behavior to make ends meet by forging literary documents from the past and selling them as the real deal.
Starring as Israel, McCarthy drops all the artifice and bluster that she usually brings to her comedic characters to bring us a "non-people" person (Israel's own words) who is down on her luck. I was a bit skeptical of this performance in the first half of the film for I thought she had fallen victim to the "comedian trying their hands at a serious role" syndrome, being WAY too serious and glum, without a hint of humor. But, in the 2nd half of the film, McCarthy really finds this character and we begin to see a fully formed 3 dimensional person emerging on the screen - warts and all. And, when Israel/McCarthy gives the speech that will be shown at her Oscar nomination, she shows that she is fully deserving of any accolades that might come her way. It is a strong, humanistic portrayal of a person trying to figure it out - and learning that the shortcut probably isn't the best way to go.
Aiding her in her journey - and in this film - is Richard E. Grant as Jack Hock, another lost soul trying to make it in this world while having a good time doing it. Grant has the "showier" of the 2 roles and he revels in his moments. I would be fine with Grant being nominated as well - it is that strong of a performance and balances McCarthy's character wonderfully.
I did have a problem with the first 1/2 of this film, mainly for I disliked the 2 main characters being portrayed, they are certainly NOT 2 people to root for and I felt the film was only showing 1 dimensional stereotypes, but once McCarthy and Grant devise the forgery scheme, the film - and the performances - get very interesting, and multi-layered, indeed.
Keep in mind that this is an "Art House" film, by that I mean "talky". There isn't a whole lot of action and a TON of atmosphere and dialogue, not the type of film for everyone, but for those of you who like this sort of thing, you'll be rewarded by strong performances that lifts this film to a higher level.
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Most people when they hear the name Tonya Harding immediately have images of Nancy Kerrigan holding her knee and crying out “Why?” over and over again come to their minds. They may even think of Harding herself crying to a panel of judges about the state of the laces on her skates during Olympic competition. Her name and image became a point of ridicule and shame. She became the butt of jokes throughout the 90s and a never-ending punchline. People were not sympathetic to her and were not willing to hear her story. She was condemned to being the monster that we convinced ourselves that she was. The film I, Tonya sheds light onto who this woman was in demonstrating the complexities of her upbringing, years of abuse at the hands of her mother and later her husband. Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, Wolf of Wall Street) stars as Tonya Harding, the disgraced Olympic figure skater.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
I Tonya, takes audiences deep into the world that Tonya Harding experiences. We see the heartache, we bear witness to the brutal violence and abuse she suffers. Audiences find themselves rooting for Tonya to break out and become a success. The film, based on interviews, court testimony, and sports and news footage allows us all to have a greater picture of exactly who Tonya was. It points out in a mixture of humor, terror, and realism what the public got wrong about her and how we all became her worst abusers. The public wanted her to not only fail, but to fail miserably as most had fallen in love with her competitor and the victim of an attack committed in Tonya’s name. I Tonya, through brutal honesty shows us how someone who is already flawed due to their appearance, presentation, or lack of polish can quickly become villainized because they do not fit our description of innocent or are seen as someone we want representing us. The true reality of I, Tonya is that the film is a reflection in the mirror. It is one of the most honest representations of what the human, and more specifically, the American experience is. You have successes and failures, but despite this, we are recognized for the worst actions that are linked to our names and images.
I, Tonya takes the best elements of Mommy Dearest, Blades of Glory, Black Swan, and Sleeping With The Enemy in order to create a sports biopic that audiences will not realize they needed until they find themselves walking out of the theater. Margot Robbie, Allison Janney (Mom, The Help, Juno), and Sebastian Stan (Captain America: Civil War) will have audiences angered, elated, and heartbroken as they take audiences on a full tour of their emotions. I, Tonya is an instant classic that will capture audiences with its storytelling and demonstrate that Tonya Harding’s life is much more than a one-liner.
EmersonRose (320 KP) rated Alfred: And The Underworld in Books
Nov 20, 2019
“Yes Alfred, that is it. I love you. I love you so much. And I am worried. I, we, your father and I, and even Tirnalth – we chose this life for you. We fled for you. A great magic was unleashed to help us, for you Alfred. It helped us escape a world fallen to darkness”
Alfred and the Underworld is the second volume of Alfred: The Boy King series by author Ron Smorynski. Published on November 2017, this book continues Alfred’s journey as the King of Westfold. After spending some time back with his mother in the human world researching and preparing, he goes back to his people. Things are not going well, and Alfred has a lot of work to do to help his people get back on their feet and defend themselves from the darkness that surrounds them.
In this book, Smorynski continues not only with this adventure-filled story but has continued to build up his fantasy world. Alfred encounters several new magical creatures, both good and bad around his kingdom. We also get a further building of the magical system and who has access to magic, which adds to the world and what is possible within it. Another interesting aspect was the history and politics that took a forefront position in this book. We are given a better grasp of the world outside of Alfred’s little kingdom. There are more players in the game now some that could be allies and some that have allied themselves with the evil in the land.
I really enjoyed that in this book we get to see different perspectives. While mostly told from Alfred’s point of view, we also get sneak peaks into both his mother’s mind and the enemies Alfred, and his people are fighting. This was interesting because these other characters are privy to information Alfred does not have access to and helps build the intrigue of the story. I particularly liked the chapters focused on Alfred’s mother. Through the excitement of Alfred building up his kingdom and the thrill of preparing for battle and defeating enemies, the mother is a reminder of a big picture and a deeper mystery. Throughout the first book we were given pieces of the life that she left behind when she brought Alfred to our world, and slowly those pieces are coming together.
I greatly enjoyed this book and am excited about the third book in the series Alfred and the Quest of the Knights. Alfred and the Underworld was an exciting, fun, and interesting story on its own, but it also set up nicely for the next installment. Between the big bad that is Gorbogal the witch and the truth bomb that was dropped on Alfred in the last sentence as a cliffhanger, this book as left me desperately waiting for more.
Alfred and the Underworld is the second volume of Alfred: The Boy King series by author Ron Smorynski. Published on November 2017, this book continues Alfred’s journey as the King of Westfold. After spending some time back with his mother in the human world researching and preparing, he goes back to his people. Things are not going well, and Alfred has a lot of work to do to help his people get back on their feet and defend themselves from the darkness that surrounds them.
In this book, Smorynski continues not only with this adventure-filled story but has continued to build up his fantasy world. Alfred encounters several new magical creatures, both good and bad around his kingdom. We also get a further building of the magical system and who has access to magic, which adds to the world and what is possible within it. Another interesting aspect was the history and politics that took a forefront position in this book. We are given a better grasp of the world outside of Alfred’s little kingdom. There are more players in the game now some that could be allies and some that have allied themselves with the evil in the land.
I really enjoyed that in this book we get to see different perspectives. While mostly told from Alfred’s point of view, we also get sneak peaks into both his mother’s mind and the enemies Alfred, and his people are fighting. This was interesting because these other characters are privy to information Alfred does not have access to and helps build the intrigue of the story. I particularly liked the chapters focused on Alfred’s mother. Through the excitement of Alfred building up his kingdom and the thrill of preparing for battle and defeating enemies, the mother is a reminder of a big picture and a deeper mystery. Throughout the first book we were given pieces of the life that she left behind when she brought Alfred to our world, and slowly those pieces are coming together.
I greatly enjoyed this book and am excited about the third book in the series Alfred and the Quest of the Knights. Alfred and the Underworld was an exciting, fun, and interesting story on its own, but it also set up nicely for the next installment. Between the big bad that is Gorbogal the witch and the truth bomb that was dropped on Alfred in the last sentence as a cliffhanger, this book as left me desperately waiting for more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
World War I was called “The Great War” and “The War to End All Wars” as the sheer number of nations and continents involved in the conflict as well as the tremendous loss of life; was thought to be so horrific that war would become a thing of the past.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
As we know this did not happen as a generation later the world was once again at war with even great death and destruction to follow. However in “1917” we see the conflict from the viewpoint of a lowly Corporal Schofield (George MacKay) who along with his friend Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) are tasked with delivering a message across enemy lines to warn advanced units to call of an attack due to an ambush being set by the Germans.
The duo are told that the enemy has pulled back and as such; the dreaded No Man’s Land between the opposing trenches are likely to be abandoned as well their approach to a town near their destination. With the phone lines down; the duo are the only option and they are at first shocked to learn that it would just the two of them.
As they make their way across a grim and corpse-laden battlefield, the audience as well as the two men get a look at the horrific conditions that combat took place under and how fallen individuals were left to decompose where they fell due to the entrenched and stagnant nature of Trench Warfare.
As complications mount, the two must face up to their greatest fears and challenges; driven by a sense of mission and purpose for a conflict they just want to see end so they can return home to their families.
Director Sam Mendes has crafted an Oscar Caliber film as it is gripping as it is breathtaking thanks to the amazing visuals. The contrast between the beauty of the landscape and the carnage of war has rarely been captured as well as it was in this film and the fact that Mendes had a hand in writing the story based on stories told by a relative really help to bring the full impact of the story home.
The film has some amazing sequences like sustained and extended shots where you wonder how Mendes was able to film scenes with so many things going on in one take as there is a scene near the start that looks as if it is an extended scene with no breaks or cutaways.
In the end the biggest selling point for the film is that it is a human drama at its core. While there is combat and action, they are not the focal points as much of the film centers around the young men and their conversations.
The film will stay with you after the credits roll and I consider “1917” to be one of the best films of 2019 and one not to be missed.
Survivalcraft Day One
Games and Entertainment
App
You are marooned on the shores of an infinite blocky world. Explore, mine resources, craft tools and...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Greenland (2020) in Movies
Jul 1, 2021
It Doesn't Work
While surfing through my various streaming services looking for something to get swallowed up into my couch while watching, I encountered GREENLAND a film about a “planet killing” comet hurtling towards Earth starring that noted thespian Gerard Butler.
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
“Great”, I thought, “a disaster flick starring the guy from another cheesy disaster flick GEOSTORM, this should be fun, mindless entertainment”.
It wasn’t mindless and it wasn’t - most definitely - fun.
GREENLAND takes a “realistic” approach to the “what would happen if a killer comet starts barreling towards the Earth”. Because of this “realistic” approach, the mood throughout the film is pretty somber while the characters stand around and talk about the implications/consequences of this event.
There are 3 BIG issues with this film and it’s approach
1). The “realism” of what happens only occurs in service to the plot, when our heroes need to get from “Point A” to “Point B”, the freeways and roadways are, magically, empty - and a vehicle (completely full of gas) is conveniently awaiting them.
2). Gerard Butler is not even close enough of a good actor to carry the dialogue-heavy scenes.
3). Butler and his estranged wife (is there any other type of couple in these types of films) played by the “good enough” Morena Baccarin (DEADPOOL) are saddled with one of the most annoying, whiny kids (badly acted by Roger Dale Floyd) in the history of movies. At one point the child disappears from the plot (it would be a spoiler to explain why), I was really hoping that this character would not come back.
About the only thing that works in this film is a brief, extended cameo by Scott Glenn as Baccarin’s father, it lifts the middle of this sagging film at a time that it desperately needed it, giving me hope for the last 1/2 of the movie - a hope that was not realized.
I’m not sure I can lay all the blame of this failed film on Director Ric Roman Waugh (Angel Has Fallen), but he didn’t help himself here, either. He lingers way to long on events, dialogue and scenes, with the standard “light piano” underscore that emphasizes the importance of what is going on.
I blame the Producers of this film who, originally, had Neill Blomkamp (DISTRICT 9) lined up to Direct and Chris Evans to star in his first post-Avengers role. Both ended up dropping out and I can only imagine that the Producers cut the Director, Casting and Special Effects budgets, but kept the seriousness and realism of the tone.
It didn’t work.
Skip GREENLAND. If you want to check out “comets hitting the Earth” films, I would steer you towards the 1990’s duo of ARMAGEDDON and DEEP IMPACT.
Letter Grade: C
4 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Honest Thief (2020) in Movies
Oct 13, 2020
Tom (Liam Neeson) is a long-time bank robber eager to put his past behind him in the new film “Honest Thief”. A circumstance forced Tom to decide to strike back at the establishment following a career in ordinance in the military and has found he has a real talent for blowing safes and making away with millions of dollars over several years.
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5
The Feds have been unable to stop him and regularly field numerous calls from people claiming to be responsible in order to gain attention. So when Tom calls Agent Sam Baker (Robert Patrick) and his partner Agent Meyers (Jeffrey Donovan); his claims are met with skepticism.
Tom has fallen in love with an aspiring Psychologist he met while renting a storage facility and he is eager to start a new and honest life with Annie (Kate Walsh). Tom offers to return all nine million dollars that he has stolen in term for a light sentence at a minimum security locale near Boston so Annie can visit him frequently.
Unwilling to accept that Tom is who he says he is, the agents dispatch Agents Nivens (Jai Courtney) and Agent Hall (Anthony Ramos); to interview Tom and check out his story. Tom offers to tell them where the money is in order to prove his claims. When several boxes of cash are discovered in storage; Nivens decides to take the money and pressures Hall into going along with it despite his reservations.
Nivens them attempts to eliminate Tom but in doing so kills Agent Baker who has shown up unexpectedly. Tom is now framed for a murder he did not commit and forced to flee in order to try to clear his name and make good on his initial offer to turn himself in.
Nivens is not willing to stop there and escalates his level of corruption and danger including threats on Hall and his family to ensure his compliance and silence.
As anyone who has ever seen a Liam Neeson film in the last ten years or so can deduce his character is motivated by events that follows and with his expert knowledge of explosives looks to strike back at Nivens and ensure justice is served.
While the film may be a bit slower paced in some areas than fans of Neeson may expect; he turns in a satisfying performance as a sort of modern day Robin Hood.
Tom is a man who does not make excuses for his actions and is willing to pay the price for them but believes he was justified in what he did and the reasons behind them.
The supporting cast is solid and while the film does have some real gaps in logic which must be suspended to make the story work; it does entertain.
In the end “Honest Thief” provides enough enjoyment to make it worth your time and shows that Neeson still can deliver what fans have come to expect from him.
3.5 stars out of 5