Search
Fred (860 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2018
Flash, Wonder Woman, Batman, Superman, Aquaman, Cyborg (3 more)
Steppenwolf is great!
Action was great
Story was good
Horrendous special effects. Cyborg looks terrible. (1 more)
Dialogue was iffy
Was surprised by this one. It's good!
I have to admit. Most time I avoid reviews of movies, because quite frankly, they may affect my feelings towards a film. However, I heard only bad things about Justice League & was totally going to skip it, considering what I did hear about it & my disappointment with the recent string of superhero films. So, when a friend of mine said it was actually good, I gave it a shot. I'm happy I did.
The film is very good. Not great, but when put up against Wonder Woman, Black Panther & Superman v Batman, it shines.
The chemistry between the actors is great. They really come across as a team, unlike the Avengers. The new guys are great! Flash is funny, as he should be. Aquaman is a badass, because if he wasn't, he'd be boring "Superfriends" Aquaman. And Cyborg, well...Cyborg let's just say, is a great character & acted well, but special effects that bring his body to life aren't so...special. He looks out of place, like a cartoon put against a real background. When he moves his head, it floats around on his neck. It's not just one time, but every time. And the end battle takes place in a CGI town that looks worse than the first season of Beast Wars:Transformers.
But I can overlook that, because besides the flaws, we got a fun film to watch. And stay after the credits. You won't be disappointed.
The film is very good. Not great, but when put up against Wonder Woman, Black Panther & Superman v Batman, it shines.
The chemistry between the actors is great. They really come across as a team, unlike the Avengers. The new guys are great! Flash is funny, as he should be. Aquaman is a badass, because if he wasn't, he'd be boring "Superfriends" Aquaman. And Cyborg, well...Cyborg let's just say, is a great character & acted well, but special effects that bring his body to life aren't so...special. He looks out of place, like a cartoon put against a real background. When he moves his head, it floats around on his neck. It's not just one time, but every time. And the end battle takes place in a CGI town that looks worse than the first season of Beast Wars:Transformers.
But I can overlook that, because besides the flaws, we got a fun film to watch. And stay after the credits. You won't be disappointed.
MI
Metro Issue 193
Book
Metro is Australia's premier film and media quarterly journal. It is independent, outspoken and...
Richard III
William Shakespeare and Thomas Cartelli
Book
This Norton Critical Edition of Richard III is based on the First Quarto (1597) edition of the play...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies
Jan 13, 2019
Good...Not Great
Rosemary’s Baby takes you down a rabbit hole and you have no idea what’s waiting for you at the other end. It drove me mad at times as I tried to figure out just what exactly was going on. The story follows a couple and the strange happenings that ensure when they move into a new apartment complex.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 8
I’m watching this movie as I write this as I typically try and do when I write reviews. The beginning is intriguing because it’s chocked full of foreshadowing. Hints are dropped here and there and you recognize almost instantly that something is off. Great job here of being subtle without being overbearing.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
The film succeeds with a visual jarring aspect where you never really gain your footing. You spend most of the film trying to figure out up from down and that’s in large part due to the fact that nothing really seems out of sorts…except for a few things here and there. Director Roman Polanski is like a cat owner with a laser pointer directing your attention in the right place for a bit then redirecting. Everything is under the surface waiting to boil over.
Conflict: 8
As the film progresses and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) descends into madness, you are hoping she can unravel the mystery of what exactly is happening. The conflict comes in the tension of the movements, the things moving under the surface that you know are there. Every new occurrence brings you closer to the truth and makes things more tense.
Genre: 4
This was probably a solid pass for the 1960’s, but it’s honestly pretty tame for today’s standards. I might catch some heat for not respecting the time period it was filmed in, but if we are identifying this as a horror film, then it pales in comparison to some of the horror that has kept me up at night. Also, when I compare it to a film like The Birds from the same period, it comes up short for me.
Memorability: 5
Pace: 7
Things move quickly enough, especially after the famous “dream sequence” that occurs. The pace is driven by the mystery of all the craziness unfolding. You are looking for answers along with Rosemary. A handful of scenes could have been shortened, but things never really drag on for the most part.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 4
Probably my biggest issue with the film. I won’t ruin it, but after everything that transpired, I was looking for a bit more hope for Rosemary. A few tweaks here and there may have altered my opinion of the entire film as a whole.
Overall: 74
Great cinematic storytelling isn’t quite enough to elevate Rosemary’s Baby to a classic in my opinion. Intriguing but not earth-shattering. Worth a one-time watch.
Kelly (279 KP) rated Bird Box (2018) in Movies
Jan 7, 2019
Enjoyable
Contains spoilers, click to show
I had been eager to watch this for some time after reading reviews, and was not disappointed. Having never read the book in which the film is based, I did not know what to expect. I knew that the film was a horror, but am not easily shocked or scared, so was not expecting much from this point of view, however I did find the film enjoyable in terms of the storyline.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
The story is based around a reluctant mother, played by Sandra Bullock, who finds she has to raise the child she never wanted as a result of an apocalyptic event. The general premise of the story is that there are creature, which if you see, result in impending insanity and suicidal thoughts. Malorie, the main character seeks refuge in a house with other survivors (who predictably don’t make it to the end of the story) in order to ride out the apocalypse. Realising that her position is not stable, the story also flashes to the future, showing Malories escape towards a safe haven with her son and the child of one of the other survivors. The path to the safe haven is taken blind folded (to avoid looking at the invisible threat), aided by a small box which contains birds, who can sense the presence of the evil. Having seen a fair few horrors, I am pretty desensitised to the use of fear in the movie - basically, I didn’t find it too scary, however I did feel that the story was intriguing.
One of the most interesting aspects of the film was the story of the relationship between Malorie and her children. The reluctant mother never named the children formally until the end, and we see the relationship and her feelings towards them both evolve over the course of the movie.
I felt that this was one of the better roles Sandra Bullock has played, and she acted well throughout the movie, her scenes that portrayed uncertainty and fear were believable and she evolved the character well as the story line develops.
Would I lose sleep after watching this, no- the film was not that scary, but ultimately I found it an enjoyable story with a sweet twist at the end. I look forward to reading the book next.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 23, 2019
It’s always surprising when a truly awful film performs well at the box-office, but that’s exactly what happened with 2017’s London Has Fallen. Despite overwhelmingly poor reviews, the sequel to 2013’s marginally better Olympus Has Fallen made over four times its production budget in ticket sales.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
Naturally, a sequel in the now originally named ‘Fallen’ film series was greenlit soon after with the majority of the cast returning for the third instalment. But is the finished product, Angel Has Fallen as bad as its predecessor? Or is this the turning point?
Authorities take Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) into custody for the failed assassination attempt of U.S. President Allan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman). After escaping from his captors, Banning must evade the FBI and his own agency to find the real threat to the president. Desperate to uncover the truth, he soon turns to unlikely allies to help clear his name and save the country from imminent danger.
First thing’s first. This is better than London Has Fallen in every conceivable area. Where that film was packed full of grainy stock footage, poor CGI and laughable dialogue, Angel Has Fallen at least attempts to create a reasonably coherent film, even if the end result is completely forgettable.
The script for one attempts to focus on the mental and physical strain Gerard Butler’s job has taken on both aspects of his health. We join the film with Butler working his way through an assault course of sorts, so far so Gerard. However, as the film progresses the audience realises that Agent Banning is suffering from a lot of demons, impacting his clarity and causing him to lose focus.
To be fair, Butler does his best with the material he’s given, but three films in, even he is starting to look a little bored. The rest of the cast don’t fare any better. Morgan Freeman dons his tried and tested President persona, but the 82-year-old legend struggles with the physical demands of the role – and the all too obvious body doubles are a jarring mismatch with a film that is occasionally nicely choreographed and edited.
Only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success
The highlight comes about half way through the film as we are introduced to a dishevelled Nick Nolte playing Clay Banning, Mike’s foul-mouthed father, living off grid in rural Virginia. The casting is a little odd at first but the pair share good on-screen chemistry with each other and are much better than any relationship we saw in the film’s two predecessors. One of the action sequences the two of them have together is absurd but genuinely funny.
While the script has improved somewhat (there’s no unnecessary racism to be had), there are still huge flaws here. A third-act twist is one of the most ridiculously predictable twists in movie history, made all the more insulting by the fact that there are no red herrings in the story whatsoever. Come on guys, at least give us something else to think about! Instead of an “oooo” when the twist is revealed, the collective response from the audience was practically an eye-roll.
Elsewhere, the film’s finale, which feels like it goes on for far too long, is pure cinematic nonsense of the highest degree but does utilise this instalment’s bigger budget reasonably well. There are instances of poor CGI and very very obvious green screen dotted throughout, but nothing as bad as the laughably rubbish explosions and CG helicopters that riddled London Has Fallen.
Angel Has Fallen (2019 Movie) Official Trailer - Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman - YouTube
Overall, only a film series as mediocre as ‘Fallen’ could make Angel Has Fallen feel like a success but the increased focus on the human elements of the lead characters rather than the outright racism featured in the previous films is a welcome change, and while the action scenes are filmed with a little too much shaky cam for my liking, they’re decently watchable if lacking in any real originality.
The problem we have is that this film will undoubtedly be yet another success if the sold-out screening I attended is anything to go by. Inevitably, this will then pave the way for more similarly themed movies. However, these films aren’t created for those of us who love cinema or to show off the craft of film-making, they’re made for people who want to check their phones every now and then or have a chat to the person next to them. And to be frank, that’s a cinematic world I’d rather not be a part of.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Dean (6927 KP) rated Cross My Heart in Books
Aug 12, 2017
A very easy read, you can't put it down (2 more)
Lots of twists and turns
The tension builds and builds
Another thrilling Cross story
I'm not a huge book reader, as my many film reviews give away. I do like the Alex Cross stories with @Along Came a Spider (2001) one of my favourite Thrillers. This is actually the 21st Alex Cross novel of 25 so far. Hopefully more will be made into films.
This was so easy to get into and before you know it you are a few chapters in. The characters and the various plotlines are all neatly interwoven. This story switches between Cross and his antagonist's perspectives. There as always are a few great twists along the way. It does feel like a story in its own right but it does continue with Hope to die. So best to know that from the start, make sure you have both.
This was so easy to get into and before you know it you are a few chapters in. The characters and the various plotlines are all neatly interwoven. This story switches between Cross and his antagonist's perspectives. There as always are a few great twists along the way. It does feel like a story in its own right but it does continue with Hope to die. So best to know that from the start, make sure you have both.
Suswatibasu (1702 KP) rated The Fault in Our Stars in Books
Sep 11, 2017
Bittersweet, but quite similar to others in the genre
There seems to be rave reviews for this book and its counterpart film, and while I understand that it is tragic I just feel I've read similar novels in the past.
The tone resembles My Sister's Keeper in many ways, written in the perspective of teenagers suffering from cancer and attempting to lead as normal a life as possible. And while it's sweet and sad, I just don't feel it was written that spectacularly. The story content is important, but the writing falls a little short - but I'm assuming that as this is more for young adults, it is geared in this way as well.
And I may sound completely heartless but the build-up to the reveal was overdone, and the ending was drawn out for far too long that it was an anti-climax. That could be the author's intention to make death seem as if a passing ship. A little disappointed overall.
The tone resembles My Sister's Keeper in many ways, written in the perspective of teenagers suffering from cancer and attempting to lead as normal a life as possible. And while it's sweet and sad, I just don't feel it was written that spectacularly. The story content is important, but the writing falls a little short - but I'm assuming that as this is more for young adults, it is geared in this way as well.
And I may sound completely heartless but the build-up to the reveal was overdone, and the ending was drawn out for far too long that it was an anti-climax. That could be the author's intention to make death seem as if a passing ship. A little disappointed overall.