Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 22 Bullets (2013) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Story: 22 Bullets starts when retired Mafia godfather Charly Mattei (Reno) is ambushed by multiply gun man who riddle his body with bullets, 22 in his body and somehow, he survives the attack. The man behind the attack Tony Zacchia (Merad) wants the job finished so he can take the control he wants over the business, while detective Marie Goldman (Fois) has her own scores to settle with Mafia who were behind her husband’s and fellow cops’ death.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.
Charly brings his trusted friends back together to go into a full-blown war with Tony which see the bodies piling up, until he can get his hands-on Tony himself.
Characters – Charly Mattei is the retired Mafia godfather that walked away from the business with strict rules on how it will continue, he gets left for dead by the new boss who wants to play by his own rules. Now the bear has been poked he will seek revenge on everyone who tried to eliminate him, no matter how many bodies get left in his way, he knows this is the only way to keep his family safe. Tony Zacchia has taken over the business, he doesn’t want to play by the same rules though, he needs to take care of Charly before changing the rules and after that attempts fails, he starts to throw waves of men as Charly to finish the job. Martin is the closest friend to Charly, he will help make the connections to who else was involved in the assassination attempt. Marie Goldman is a cop that lost her husband to the Mafia, she has wanted to take them down for years now and this will be her best chance after she get put in the middle of the blood war.
Performances – Jean Reno is fantastic in the leading role of the film, he brings back the type of performance we saw in Leon where he is the cold-hearted killer with the heart of gold. Kad Merad, Jean-Pierre Darroussin are both good in the supporting role, though it can be easy to mix the two up. Marina Fios is good as the detective trying to get to the bottom of everything with her own tragic back past.
Story – The story here follows a former Mafia Godfather that goes on a revenge mission against the new godfather after he failed to have his assassinated bring France into a battle for power between the two leading sides in the war. This does play out like a revenge thriller with plenty of bullets, we have seen this done most recently with John Wick and this follows the same tone and body numbers you would be seeing in this one. The added side story of the cop wanting to final takedown the person who killed her husband adds to everything making this feel like a three-way war between the sides. The does play out how you would imagine which is great to see and the story doesn’t hold back either.
Action/Crime – The action is brutal when it comes to the bullet wound, even if certain moments can become overkill when it comes to the bullets flying. The crime world shown gives us an insight into the world in and out of the world with people wanting out or control.
Settings – The film is set in Marseille which shows us a new type of city for a crime film to take place in, we have all the locations you would imagine for a Mafia film.
Scene of the Movie – Dinner meeting.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Sometimes overkill.
Final Thoughts – This is an enjoyable action revenge thriller, that puts Jean Reno front and centre on a bloody rampage, one well worth watching for the action fans.
Overall: Enjoyable Action Film.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Jan 24, 2019 (Updated Jan 24, 2019)
A very funny, heartwarming drama about adoption
On paper, you'd be forgiven for thinking that Instant Family is going to be just like so many other movies you've seen over the years. A couple without children of their own decides to adopt and end up with three troubled siblings of varying ages. And when you read that it's from director/co-writer Sean Anders, along with Mark Wahlberg, who worked together on both of the 'Daddy's Home' movies, you'll think you've got a pretty good idea of the tone and direction this movie is going to follow. Luckily though, while there are some genuinely very funny moments in this movie, it also manages to successfully blend it with some serious human drama and emotion and a fantastic set of characters.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Instant Family is based on the real life experience of the director Sean Anders and the adoption process he went through with his wife. In the movie, the couple are called Pete and Ellie (Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne), who earn their living by flipping houses (buy, renovate, sell). After Ellie has an argument with her sister regarding kids, they begin thinking about having children of their own. Worried about their age, they begin looking into fostering, with a view to eventually adopting an older child.
They visit an adoption agency, where they are joined by a number of other couples and single parents all looking to find out more and begin their journey to becoming parents. Octavia Spencer and Tig Notaro are social workers, there to guide them all through the process. A very funny double act, providing a lot of the movies hilariously well timed lines. In fact, all of the other potential adopters are well written and funny, continuing to crop up throughout the movie as we revisit how everyone is getting on with their fostered children. None of this is zany, particularly goofy or over the top though - it's made very clear that many of the children in the foster system have had a pretty awful life so far, and this honest piece of reality is never downplayed.
At a meet-and-greet with potential adoptive children, organised as an outdoor event in a park, Pete and Ellie are drawn to Lizzie (Isabela Moner), a fiery teenage girl who is hanging out with the other older kids - separated from the main gathering, having resigned themselves to the notion that they're never going to get chosen by the prospective parents. When the couple mark her down as a potential for fostering, they learn that she actually comes as part of a package, having a younger brother Juan and even younger sister Lita. Pete and Ellie decide to go for it and foster all three, convinced they can make a difference in these kids lives.
There follows a period of new parents being thrown in at the deep end - the stressful night time routine, the problems with getting kids to eat and dress properly, problems at school etc. But again, it's not over the top - rooted in reality and successfully managing to walk the line between comedy and drama without resorting to exaggerated comedy set pieces. The problems experienced are made all the more challenging as the couple trying to care for and raise children who haven't had a great start in life, and have been used to a very particular way of living. Made even more difficult when the children's birth mother appears on the scene later in the movie.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy this movie as much as I did. There are more laugh out loud moments than any movie I've seen in recent years that bills itself as a comedy, but at the same time it's also a really heartwarming feel-good drama. So many enjoyable characters too, and with a sharp script that brings out the best in them all. Hugely enjoyable.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – Danny Torrance grew up to learn how to contain the nightmares of the Overlook Hotel, he has turned to alcohol and drugs to get him through adult life, until he looks to clean up his life and start fresh, using his ability to guide people to the afterlife. He does make a new friend that communicates through a wall, one that will force him into using his ability to a new fight, a new evil, where he must protect a teenage girl who is being targeted. Rose the Hat is the leader of the cult, she selects who to eat or who to turn, she is the strongest of her group and keeps them in line, she searches for the next targets, with her eyes set on Abra, only to learn just how strong she really is. Abra is a teenage girl that has the ability to look and see miles away from her location, feeling the pain of the victims, she communicates with Danny for years and now calls for his help to deal with Rose and her friends. Billy is the man that sees the good in Danny and wants to help him clean up his act, becoming his best friend. Snakebite Andi shows what it is like to be recruited by Rose, she is one character that you did want to learn more about, because it feels like certain parts of her arc are left in the editing room.
Performances – Ewan McGregor taking the leading role is wonderful in this film, showing how damaged his character’s life is. Rebecca Ferguson is a joy to watch in the villainous role. Kyliegh Curran gives a fantastic performance filled with fear, determination and aggression in the fight.
Story – The story here brings us into the modern times as Danny Torrance is all grown up, dealing with most of the nightmares from his childhood, until he starts communicating with a teenage girl that has seen herself targeted by a cult that preys on the children with the shining abilities. This is a sequel to the much-loved The Shining and does bring us a brand-new story that does make complete sense. We do see certain ideas from other Stephen King novels come to light, with the idea of good and evil joining up before a battle, much like The Stand, while we get references of others through the film. The biggest and best part of the story comes from the idea that both sides can be dealt with the scarier moments in the story, making nobody feel safe.
Horror – The horror is the most interesting and strongest part of the film, we get Danny having his nightmares and to impress more, Abra and Rose using their abilities to try and stay ahead of each other, not to mention one of the most disturbing sequences of the year.
Settings – The film might be known for the iconic location of the Overlook Hotel, the rest of the locations see the gypsy characters travelling around showing how the powers are more than just a long time alone in a hotel.
Special Effects – The effects in this film show just what will happen to the cult if they don’t receive the steam, while also managing to recreate iconic moments from the original.
Scene of the Movie – Rose visits Abra.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Snakebite Andi did seem to have more to her story.
Final Thoughts – This is by far the best horror film of the year, it spins the horror ideas on its head by having both sides being put through the horror elements and does continue the legacy created by The Shining.
Overall: One of the Best Horrors Ever.
Performances – Ewan McGregor taking the leading role is wonderful in this film, showing how damaged his character’s life is. Rebecca Ferguson is a joy to watch in the villainous role. Kyliegh Curran gives a fantastic performance filled with fear, determination and aggression in the fight.
Story – The story here brings us into the modern times as Danny Torrance is all grown up, dealing with most of the nightmares from his childhood, until he starts communicating with a teenage girl that has seen herself targeted by a cult that preys on the children with the shining abilities. This is a sequel to the much-loved The Shining and does bring us a brand-new story that does make complete sense. We do see certain ideas from other Stephen King novels come to light, with the idea of good and evil joining up before a battle, much like The Stand, while we get references of others through the film. The biggest and best part of the story comes from the idea that both sides can be dealt with the scarier moments in the story, making nobody feel safe.
Horror – The horror is the most interesting and strongest part of the film, we get Danny having his nightmares and to impress more, Abra and Rose using their abilities to try and stay ahead of each other, not to mention one of the most disturbing sequences of the year.
Settings – The film might be known for the iconic location of the Overlook Hotel, the rest of the locations see the gypsy characters travelling around showing how the powers are more than just a long time alone in a hotel.
Special Effects – The effects in this film show just what will happen to the cult if they don’t receive the steam, while also managing to recreate iconic moments from the original.
Scene of the Movie – Rose visits Abra.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Snakebite Andi did seem to have more to her story.
Final Thoughts – This is by far the best horror film of the year, it spins the horror ideas on its head by having both sides being put through the horror elements and does continue the legacy created by The Shining.
Overall: One of the Best Horrors Ever.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Whickering Place (Legacy of Darkness #2) in Books
Nov 22, 2019
I've been a fan of London Clarke since I read her debut novel Wildfell. I was thrilled when Whickering Place, the second novel in the Legacy of Darkness series, came out. I really enjoyed the first book in the series The Meadows. I must say that Whickering Place really blew me away!
If you're a fan of vampires, ghosts, and a touch of romance, you will love Whickering Place. I'm not going to rehash the synopsis since you will have probably read it yourself, and the synopsis does such a great job at describing this book. Even though I'm not a fan of the whole vampire movement in media, I really did enjoy Whickering Place. The plot was done brilliantly. I very much enjoyed the world building. In fact, I couldn't find one fault with the world building. Clarke does a fantastic job at making sure you're left feeling like you are a bystander amidst all the action. While there is a cliffhanger at the end of Whickering Place, this was done intentionally and will hopefully all will be revealed in the next book in the series.
The pacing was slow for about the first quarter or so of the book as the backstory and plot were being set up. I will admit that I did think about just giving up on Whickering Place, but I'm glad I kept reading because wow, the pacing definitely picked up after that! Once it picked up, there was no going back. I devoured each page. The suspense kept me on my toes! I was heavily invested in the story and all of the characters in Whickering Place.
Each and every character no matter how minor or major was written fantastically! Each character had their own personality, and it felt as if I was reading about a real flesh and blood person instead of just a character in a book. Avery was a great character. I could sort of relate to her agoraphobia. I used to be almost as bad as her. I felt bad for her, and I was always hoping she would get better so she could have more of a life. I kept thinking that Avery and myself could become great friends if she was real. It was almost as if every decision she made was one that I would have made. Pearse was definitely an interesting character. I did feel bad for him when it came to The Colony. I was always hoping he'd be able to get away from them. He seemed like he had a good heart. I also felt bad for Colin when it came to Avery. It was very obvious that he cared deeply for her. Colin definitely came across as a stand up sort of guy! I didn't really care for Maris, not because she was written poorly. She was actually written quite well! She just reminded me of those pretty mean girls I knew back when I was in school. I didn't know what to think of Cassie. I liked Cassie, and I loved her personality and how willing she was to help out, but I was never sure if I could trust her 100 percent.
Trigger warnings for Whickering Place include profanity (there's not a lot though), sexual situations (although these aren't graphic, and there aren't many sexual scenes), murder, attempted murder, alcohol, dealings with the occult, demons, and violence.
Overall, Whickering Place is a thrilling read which such a fantastic set of characters and an intense plot! This is one of those books that even though it starts out slow, it does a fantastic job at pulling you right into its pages and doesn't let you go! I would definitely recommend Whickering Place by London Clarke to everyone aged 17+ who loves getting lost in a good thriller.
If you're a fan of vampires, ghosts, and a touch of romance, you will love Whickering Place. I'm not going to rehash the synopsis since you will have probably read it yourself, and the synopsis does such a great job at describing this book. Even though I'm not a fan of the whole vampire movement in media, I really did enjoy Whickering Place. The plot was done brilliantly. I very much enjoyed the world building. In fact, I couldn't find one fault with the world building. Clarke does a fantastic job at making sure you're left feeling like you are a bystander amidst all the action. While there is a cliffhanger at the end of Whickering Place, this was done intentionally and will hopefully all will be revealed in the next book in the series.
The pacing was slow for about the first quarter or so of the book as the backstory and plot were being set up. I will admit that I did think about just giving up on Whickering Place, but I'm glad I kept reading because wow, the pacing definitely picked up after that! Once it picked up, there was no going back. I devoured each page. The suspense kept me on my toes! I was heavily invested in the story and all of the characters in Whickering Place.
Each and every character no matter how minor or major was written fantastically! Each character had their own personality, and it felt as if I was reading about a real flesh and blood person instead of just a character in a book. Avery was a great character. I could sort of relate to her agoraphobia. I used to be almost as bad as her. I felt bad for her, and I was always hoping she would get better so she could have more of a life. I kept thinking that Avery and myself could become great friends if she was real. It was almost as if every decision she made was one that I would have made. Pearse was definitely an interesting character. I did feel bad for him when it came to The Colony. I was always hoping he'd be able to get away from them. He seemed like he had a good heart. I also felt bad for Colin when it came to Avery. It was very obvious that he cared deeply for her. Colin definitely came across as a stand up sort of guy! I didn't really care for Maris, not because she was written poorly. She was actually written quite well! She just reminded me of those pretty mean girls I knew back when I was in school. I didn't know what to think of Cassie. I liked Cassie, and I loved her personality and how willing she was to help out, but I was never sure if I could trust her 100 percent.
Trigger warnings for Whickering Place include profanity (there's not a lot though), sexual situations (although these aren't graphic, and there aren't many sexual scenes), murder, attempted murder, alcohol, dealings with the occult, demons, and violence.
Overall, Whickering Place is a thrilling read which such a fantastic set of characters and an intense plot! This is one of those books that even though it starts out slow, it does a fantastic job at pulling you right into its pages and doesn't let you go! I would definitely recommend Whickering Place by London Clarke to everyone aged 17+ who loves getting lost in a good thriller.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Feb 5, 2020
A Worthy Adaptation
There have been many adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 19th Century Classic novel LITTLE WOMEN following the adventures, loves and losses of the 4 March sisters - Jo, Meg, Amy and Beth.. My favorite is the Orono High School's production of the musical version of LITTLE WOMEN (starring my daughter as Jo), but coming in a close second is the 1933 version with Katherine Hepburn starring as Jo (the quintessential Jo, in my book). So was there really a need for ANOTHER version of this?
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Well...yes...and...no.
As adapted and directed by Greta Gerwig, this version of LITTLE WOMEN stars Saoirse Ronan as Jo, Emma Watson as Meg, Florence Pugh as Amy and Eliza Scanlen as Beth and has a strong "2019" female empowerment vibe to it (this is intended to be a compliment). I've seen this called a "Little Women for the #metoo era" and I think this is misguided branding - for it does disservice to the #metoo movement - and to this film.
Ronan - as expected - was Oscar nominated for her strong, independent turn as the strong and independent Jo. This is a perfect marriage of performer and material (almost as good as the Hepburn turn) and Ronan lands this character strongly (and correctly) at every turn. Timothee Chalamet matches her beat for beat as her erstwhile love, Laurie. This is the 2nd time that these two have played opposite each other (LADYBIRD was the other time) and there is a strong chemistry between these two - I look forward to many, many more pairings of Ronan and Chalamet in the future.
Famously (or maybe, it's infamously) Greta Gerwig did NOT receive and Oscar nomination for her Direction - and I think that is a shame (there are at least 2 nominated Directors that I would take off the list in favor of her). Because she adapted the screen play (a piece of work that she WAS Oscar nominated for - and will win in an effort to make up for the Directing snub), her Direction is sure-handed and strong throughout. She has a very good feel for the material and knows what she wants to do throughout, to interesting results.
This is because Gerwig chooses to focus much of this version on the relationship between Jo and Amy - a relationship that gets short shrift in most of the other adaptations. By casting Florence Pugh (also Oscar nominated) in the Amy role, Gerwig has a strong antagonist to Ronan's protagonist - with shades of both being grey. Neither character (or performance) is black and white they are both interacting with each other as realistic sisters would, both taking turns being "in the right"....and "the wrong".
Because of the focus on the Jo and Amy characters, the other 2 sisters - Meg and (especially) Beth - get short changed and even though both Watson and Scanlen are "game", they have precious little to do. The same goes with Meryl Streep (Aunt March), Laura Dern (Marmie), Tracy Letts (who seems to be in EVERYTHING right now) and Bob Odenkirk (of all people). They are all strong - and earnest - in their limited time on screen, but NONE of them have that much to do. Only Chris Cooper shines brightly in his small, supporting role.
I have to admit that because I've seen this story many, many times, I found my mind wandering a bit - especially at the beginning. But by the time Ronan/Chalamet/Pugh started working off of each other, the film - and my interest - rose.
So...is another version of LITTLE WOMEN necessary? I'd say no. But...if this version of LITTLE WOMEN is the one that the Little Women of today see - and can identify with - then I say "bring it on."
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Mosaic Photo Books by Mixbook
Shopping and Catalogs
App
Featured on The Today Show as ‘One of our favorite gifts’ and Good Morning America's ‘Deals...
PersonalityMatch - Personality Test
Lifestyle and Education
App
Discover who you really are! Find yourself. Improve your relationships. Take a free personality...
Sarah (7800 KP) rated Willy's Wonderland (2021) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
Could’ve been so much better
If you’ve seen the trailer for Willy’s Wonderland, you were no doubt wondering what on earth your eyes had just been witness to, and I’m afraid the full film doesn’t get any less demented. Willy’s Wonderland is a 2021 horror comedy from director Kevin Lewis that is every bit a modern day B-movie, complete with cheesy script and questionable acting. On paper it sounds like it should be entertainingly bad but silly, but unfortunately in reality it’s just bad.
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
Willy’s Wonderland follows a drifter (Nicolas Cage) who experiences car troubles on his way cross country, and is tricked into becoming a janitor overnight for the condemned Willy’s Wonderland to pay off his car repairs. Willy’s is a kids restaurant slash indoor play area themed around Willy the weasel and his animatronic friends, including a crocodile, chameleon, gorilla and ostrich. However Willy’s isn’t just your ordinary run down restaurant as it has a dark and horrific history involving murderers, criminals and satanic rituals. Now the friendly animatronic creatures have taken on a murderous life of their own and in a bid to appease them, the town elders (including the sheriff played by Beth Grant) have turned to tricking people travelling through into Willy’s to act as human sacrifices. Unfortunately the townsfolk don’t get quite what they expected with Cage’s unnamed drifter, who alongside local girl Liv (Emily Tosta), gives the demonic creatures a lot more than they bargained for.
I have been dying to watch this film since seeing the trailer. It looked like it’d be absolutely crazy silliness from start to finish and one of those films that are so bad they’re good. But as much as I wanted to like this, I feel like it fell short from what was promised. The first major problem is that it’s meant to be a horror comedy, but there was little humour on offer and the only time I really found myself laughing was at the sheer bizarreness of this entire film. Horror-wise there is a decent amount of blood and gore, but some of it looks badly done and unrealistic and there’s little to be scared of here either. Towards the start of the film there are a few creepy scenes with the animatronic animals, but as the story progresses the scares are lost and this is where the film suffers. It is possible to make a film that’s scary, funny and good (Cabin in the Woods is a shining example), but sadly Willy’s Wonderland doesn’t pull it off.
The fight scenes are lost due to the crazy artistic and surreal style of camera work, meaning you barely have a clue what’s going on and the backing music to accompany these fight scenes doesn’t always work either. And then there’s Nicolas Cage. For some unknown reason, they’ve decided to make his character completely mute with absolutely no dialogue whatsoever. This works in the first few scenes, but as the story unfolds you find yourself crying out for him to say something, anything. If any film was suitable for Cage’s signature crazy eyed overacting, it’s this one and not utilising this is criminal. What were they thinking?! The script isn’t great and the majority of characters are entirely wasted and one dimensional, even for a horror film, with only Emily Tosta coming out of this relatively unscathed, so a bit of Cage’s acting could’ve really helped make this a lot more entertaining.
Willy’s Wonderland had a lot of promise, with an interesting and crazy B-movie horror storyline. However it’s the execution which has let it down, as it’s severely lacking in horror or comedy and doesn’t make use of the cast or promising story. It’s a shame as it’s semi enjoyable as is, but could’ve been so much better!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated House of X/Powers of X in Books
Nov 30, 2020
I regret that it took me almost a month to finish my re-visit of HoX/PoX, but it did. And, not because the book sucked (COVID-19's mandatory "Stay-at-Home" shit starts to grate on the nerves, y'know?)! ANYWAY...
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!
***
Say what you want about Marvel and their annoying reboot kerfuffles, but this whole "Dawn of X" that Jonathan Hickman is helming? FUCKING BRILLIANT, okay?!!? I swear to ya, the X-books haven't been this exciting or even remotely relevant in about twenty years! And as some who's been reading the X-books since the late 70's (yeah, I'm THAT old!), you can be sure that means something!
I have been bored with Wolverine's character the last handful of years. Other than the film LOGAN, I thought his character was overused and something of an ass, if I have to be honest. However, here? Holy crow, I am digging the ol' canucklehead again! Thank you, Mr. Hickman!
And I am going to keep this next bit Spoiler-free, just in case there is anyone reading this review and they have not yet finishing a'readin' it... Who knew [SPOILER-FREE] was a frikkin' mutant?! Again, I am a reader of the X-Men since the late 70's, but I still never had an even inkling that they were a mutant! And the way it was all presented? EPIC! I wanted to hate it, because it sounded so frikkin' trope-ish, without any redemptive potential! None of us likes to be proven wrong, but in this, yeah, I'll take it! Hickman did a smashing job with this plot point, one in which I am apt to conclude that when "Dawn of X" reaches its pinnacle (whenever this is.. <u>Thanks, COVID!!</u>), it's gonna come back around and it's a'gonna pack one hell of a punch!
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/188153395@N04/50081223842/in/dateposted-public/"; title="Image00016"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50081223842_cb1c47d5be_n.jpg"; width="220" height="218" alt="Image00016"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
And I am fairly certain that what I am about to say is not going to be a spoiler, as I feel this has been true for some time now, but good Lord, Professor X is a dick! He is playing chess, with a board in his head that only he knows of, and anyone who is close to him gets relegated to "pawn status"!
I totally get where he, Erik (Magneto) and [SPOILER-FREE] are working towards with the whole mutant-nation of Krakoa, I truly do! But, with Xavier keep his hand of cards close to his chest, it seems sketchy at best! While we have seen Xaviers in past X-books where he wasn't as good as we thought, but it got old hat, y'know? Here? Yeah, I'm in for the long haul, as I am curious where this is all going to go and I suspect it's not going to go well as far as Xavier is concerned!
And amaz-a-balls as Hickman is with all this, it would be so unbecoming of me if I didn't address the fab art on both series! We had Pepe Larraz on HoX, while R.B. Silva handled the art for PoX. And let me tell ya, both of them did bang-up jobs, really bringing the icing for two already outstanding "cakes"! Bravo, gentleman, bravo!
So, time to wrap this up.. If you have any vested interest in all things mutant-related and have felt severely disappointed in the way things have been handled for the last twenty years plus, then you sincerely owe it to yourself to read this book! Worse case scenario? You're a closed-minded S.O.B., like I used to be, and there's just no pleasin' yer ass!
Peace. y'all!