Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams starts by Mayor Buckman (Mosely) explaining why they are out for vengeances where they town of Pleasant Valley lost 2001 residents in the 1800s. When the deal with a local Sheriff is getting pushed to the limits Buckman makes sure his maniacs are safe. This leads to them going on tour to get the people from the north. We then meet High society sister Rome (Johnson) and Tina (Hope) part of Road Rascal reality show going to the south. After their camper gets run off the crashes they get stuck in the middle of nowhere where they bump into the Pleasant Valley community.
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
The producer Val (Leon) takes this chance to make the event simpler without having to go full south. Not knowing the true nature of the Pleasant Valley people are the reality show crew become the latest victims in the most gruesome possible ways.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is a follow up to 2001 Maniacs a remake in its own right. Sadly this sequel is simply terrible, losing Robert Englund is always going to be bad but he just got out in time. The sound is awful the acting is terrible the story gets bogged down because the very outline of the story is well acceptable for horror. The characters or victims are all unlikable and you simple don’t care what happens to them, so how I am supposed to like this if none of the characters need supporting and nothing shocking happens? This was simple terrible rant over. (1/10)
REPORT THIS AD
Actor Review
Bill Moseley: Mayor George W Buckman leader of the Pleasant Valley people whose ability to talk people into them being friend works for them but soon we see his true nature. I know Bill is a cult favourite but this, was just bad man. (2/10)
Lin Shaye: Granny Boone old wise lady of the Pleasant Valley people who is just as crazy as Buckman. Lin would be the biggest name in the film but why is she here? Has anyone seen Insidious, yeah it is the same woman. (1/10)
Support Cast: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams every single member of the supporting cast is unlikable annoying and you might actually cheer when they die.
Director Review: Tim Sullivan – Tim just retire. (0/10)
Comedy: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not funny. (0/10)
Horror: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is not scary. (0/10)
Settings: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams has a random setting that doesn’t make sense. (2/10)
Special Effects: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams blows the special effects that should be good for the kills that are sloppy. (2/10)
Suggestion: 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams is one to avoid and never think twice about. (AVOID)
Best Part: My copy had adverts, so I knew what was good to watch.
Worst Part: The Film
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: Please God no
Post Credits Scene: No
Awards: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 24 Minutes
Tagline: If They Kill You, They Will Come!
Overall: I need my time back
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/02/06/2001-maniacs-field-of-screams-2010/
Midge (525 KP) rated The Girl in the Corner in Books
Jan 13, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2019)
Very relatable (2 more)
Compelling, mature and thought-provoking
Great depth and plenty of humour
A Very Enjoyable Read - 4 Stars ! ⭐⭐⭐⭐
I was excited to read this latest novel by Amanda Prowse, having been lured by the attractive cover design and the very relatable premise of a woman who feels the need to re-evaluate her whole life, following her husband's guilty admission of his betrayal.
In the opening chapter, we are introduced to sixteen-year-old Rae-Valentine Pritchard, who is quiet and shy, when she meets the very confident, loud and gregarious Dolly Latimer, at College. The two girls quickly become best friends and are inseparable teenagers, laughing and joking their way through life. Dolly arranges a double date for the two of them, her brother Howard and his friend, Vinnie. Rae and Howard, so in love, get married two years later.
From her modest life in the suburbs to a splendid Georgian house in North London, Rae is now a devoted wife and mother to daughter Hannah and her son, George. Following a surprise party in celebration of their silver wedding anniversary, Howard confesses to a shocking betrayal of their marital vows that totally shatters Rae. She is forced to take stock of her position as wife and mother and also her role as a general dogsbody to the Latimer family restaurant business. Will her relationship with her best friend Dolly be affected?
Rae starts to think about all her teenage dreams that she once had - training as a chef and island-hopping in Greece. Can Rae give up on her shattered marriage, live life for herself, and be the real Rae-Valentine?
The planned anniversary celebration trip to Antigua still goes ahead, however, Dolly travels with Rae, instead of Howard. Dolly's divided loyalties and a handsome and friendly, young barman are just the starts of matters becoming even more complicated. In Antigua, Rae contemplates the possibility of continuing with her marriage and what this might mean for her friendship with the enthusiastic Dolly. A reconciliation with Howard may be much more difficult than everyone thinks.
This is a wonderful story for anyone who has always felt that they were 'the girl in the corner' at every social occasion or even for just being the quiet and reserved middle child in their own family, with which I can personally identify. Amanda Prowse has a lovely writing style that captures Rae’s tormented soul beautifully. I also liked the way other issues were explored, in particular, Rae’s parents and sister, Debbie-Jo, who felt like the humble relations compared to the wealthy and successful Latimers. Howard’s betrayal is the catalyst for all of the years of unspoken emotions, forcing Rae to face her feelings of being second best in the Pritchard family.
"The Girl In The Corner" is a hugely compelling, mature and thought-provoking piece of women’s fiction. Well paced from the very beginning and quick to get into the heart of the story, the novel has great depth and plenty of humour, however, I thought the ending was slightly rushed.
Overall, "The Girl In The Corner" is a well written, emotive book about love, loss, friendship, family and following your dreams that I highly recommend.
Thanks to NetGalley and Amazon Publishing UK for an advance copy of this book.
In the opening chapter, we are introduced to sixteen-year-old Rae-Valentine Pritchard, who is quiet and shy, when she meets the very confident, loud and gregarious Dolly Latimer, at College. The two girls quickly become best friends and are inseparable teenagers, laughing and joking their way through life. Dolly arranges a double date for the two of them, her brother Howard and his friend, Vinnie. Rae and Howard, so in love, get married two years later.
From her modest life in the suburbs to a splendid Georgian house in North London, Rae is now a devoted wife and mother to daughter Hannah and her son, George. Following a surprise party in celebration of their silver wedding anniversary, Howard confesses to a shocking betrayal of their marital vows that totally shatters Rae. She is forced to take stock of her position as wife and mother and also her role as a general dogsbody to the Latimer family restaurant business. Will her relationship with her best friend Dolly be affected?
Rae starts to think about all her teenage dreams that she once had - training as a chef and island-hopping in Greece. Can Rae give up on her shattered marriage, live life for herself, and be the real Rae-Valentine?
The planned anniversary celebration trip to Antigua still goes ahead, however, Dolly travels with Rae, instead of Howard. Dolly's divided loyalties and a handsome and friendly, young barman are just the starts of matters becoming even more complicated. In Antigua, Rae contemplates the possibility of continuing with her marriage and what this might mean for her friendship with the enthusiastic Dolly. A reconciliation with Howard may be much more difficult than everyone thinks.
This is a wonderful story for anyone who has always felt that they were 'the girl in the corner' at every social occasion or even for just being the quiet and reserved middle child in their own family, with which I can personally identify. Amanda Prowse has a lovely writing style that captures Rae’s tormented soul beautifully. I also liked the way other issues were explored, in particular, Rae’s parents and sister, Debbie-Jo, who felt like the humble relations compared to the wealthy and successful Latimers. Howard’s betrayal is the catalyst for all of the years of unspoken emotions, forcing Rae to face her feelings of being second best in the Pritchard family.
"The Girl In The Corner" is a hugely compelling, mature and thought-provoking piece of women’s fiction. Well paced from the very beginning and quick to get into the heart of the story, the novel has great depth and plenty of humour, however, I thought the ending was slightly rushed.
Overall, "The Girl In The Corner" is a well written, emotive book about love, loss, friendship, family and following your dreams that I highly recommend.
Thanks to NetGalley and Amazon Publishing UK for an advance copy of this book.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Syriana (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Oil, is perhaps the most precious natural resource on the planet and also one of the most controversial. It powers industry and the economies of many nations, yet the regions that contain the largest amounts are often the most unstable, and this instability often results from the influences of the very nations that purchase the oil.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
It is a tenuous situation where buyer and seller are wary of one another and at times regard the other as a necessary evil. The money paid for the oil has made suppliers and handlers rich and powerful, but many on the outside of this privileged circle believe that greed has caused both sides to lose focus on what is most important for the people of their nations.
In the film Syriana viewers follow the paths of different people from various walks of life who for the most part do not know one another, yet are all linked by the same cause, oil.
There is the C.I.A. agent Bob Barnes (George Clooney), who spends time in locales such as Iran and Beirut eliminating threats to national security.
A lawyer, (Jeffrey Wright), who is caught in the middle as he attempts to find, and if need be eliminate damaging material that can prevent a pending merger between two oil companies.
There is the grieving energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon), who deals with his loss by siding up with a powerful Prince, (Alexander Siddig), even at the alienation of his family.
There is also a displaced Pakistani worker who after losing his job when a Chinese company acquires the refinery where he worked, falls in with a group of radicals with a militant agenda.
The above is just a small sampling of the characters as there are numerous business, political, and Middle Eastern citizens who all play very prominent parts in the story.
The main focus of the film is not only to illustrate the connectivity between the characters but to show how politics and big business influence policy in oil rich nations and how through secret deals, political intrigue, and treachery policy in and towards the same oil producing nations are set into place and maintained.
While this is not much of a shock to people who follow the news, it is the way that director Stephen Gaghan uses ordinary and in some ways unremarkable people to tell the story and how it affects those who deal with oil.
Even those who are supposed the big players are often simply being played by forces outside their control in a world where reality and perceptions are often miles apart. The complex nature of the story is actually a model of simplicity as cause and effect, as well as the ability of big business to influence lawmakers is what drives the film.
The cast is strong especially Clooney and Siddig who make their characters sympathetic while at the same time captivating. The contrast of the men who are a Prince and an agent, yet whose destinies often cause them to walk along the same paths is amazing.
Syriana is an amazing film that is so complex in its simplicity. The basic message is very clear, yet the layers that must be uncovered like a tangled web of lies in telling the story is a far reaching journey that will shock and anger most viewers.
Some may find fault with a so called liberal agenda to the film, but politics aside, Syriana is a very captivating and entertaining film that makes you think.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Stuber (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
Lack of chemistry between the leads
"Chemistry" is a tricky thing in a film and one that "either you got it or you don't" - it's an elusive element that can sink or raise a film. Case in point 2 films I have seen this week.
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I rewatched the 1998 Crime/Romance flick OUT OF SIGHT - starring George Clooney and Jennifer Lopez. I remembered this Steven Soderbergh directed film as "terrific" and was excited to show it to my bride. What I realized when watching it is that this is a middle-of-the-road film that is elevated by the tremendous (sexual) chemistry between Lopez and Clooney. It oozes off the screen and is palatable to the viewer.
On the other end of the scale is the recent Action/Comedy STUBER with comedian Kuamil Nanjiani (THE BIG SICK) and former pro wrestler Dave Bautista (Drax in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films). This is a middle-of-the-road film that is hurt (tremendously) by the LACK of chemistry between the two leads.
Nanjiani stars as Stu, a sad-sack Uber driver who does not stand up for himself while Bautista is a "nothing gets in my way" take charge cop who (because of recent eye surgery) cannot drive and hires an Uber driver, Stu (who gets called STUBER, hence the name of the film), to chase down clues to a criminal he's been on the hunt for - shenanigans ensue.
Individually, some of the scenes/scenarios of this film are fine/funny and Nanjiani is terrific as Stu and adds some clever comedic elements to a script that is "good enough" by Tripper Clancy.
And then there's Bautista.
He seems lost in this film, underplaying the things that make him good, his over-exuberance and over physicality (if that is a term) of someone of his size. Is this Bautista's fault or did Director Michael Dowse (GOON) purposely tone him down? It doesn't really matter for it doesn't really work.
And this is the beginning of the problem with the chemistry between the two leads - Nanjiani manic energy is not matched by Bautista - he seems to be an "energy sucker" and takes quite a bit of life out of this film. But...Director Dowse is also a problem, for he brings this lack of energy to quite a few of the big action scenes, underplaying, not overplaying what should have been over played.
There are some good things in this - besides the script and Nanjiani, Natalie Morales and Betty Gilpin are good and we do have a "Mira Sorvino sighting", which is welcome...but that's about it. Oh...except for an extended cameo by Karen Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS films) she brings some energy. I would have loved to see her paired with Nanjiani in this.
If you're looking for a good "buddy cop" film with good chemistry between the leads, might I suggest THE OTHER GUYS (Will Ferrell/Mark Wahlberg), RUNNING SCARED (Billy Crystal/Gregory Hines) or the greatest example of strong chemistry - 48 HOURS (Nick Nolte/Eddie Murphy). Stuber would be the example of just the opposite.
6 stars out of 10 (for Nanjiani, Gillan and Sorvino - and a script and circumstances that could have worked had the chemistry between the leads been better)
Letter Grade: B- and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated A Game of Thrones in Books
Nov 13, 2019
I've been reviewing books online for nearly a year now... and in that time I have finished every book I have started and more-or-less enjoyed every book and given positive reviews.
But this book has put an end to that. As a fan of writers such as Joe Abercrombie who cite this series and George R R Martin as a big influence, I thought I should give this a read. After all, with so many plaudits and a hit television show it couldn't be that bad, could it.
Unfortunately it could. I liked the prologue - that was interesting to read and had some good writing and interesting characters in it. The one star is purely for this part of the book. Treat it as a short story and ignore the rest of the weighty tome and you won't go far wrong.
From this point forward nothing works. I can see that Martin was trying to inject a bit of reality and grit into fantasy, though it could be argues it had not exactly been all sunlight, dancing elves and heroes with rippling muscles for several decades so I don't see it as the massive change in direction it has been touted as in some quarters.
What we have is a succession of dreary, uninteresting characters taking part in a series of dull and stilted conversations attempting to create some sort of dramatic tension simply by existing. And then quite often there will be sex, not for any reason other than it seems this is what Martin thinks makes characters interesting. And the sex scenes are really, really awful. They read as if an over-excited 15 year old boy has written them.
The structure - where each chapter is told from the point of view of a different character - probably sounded really good on paper. But the end result is almost impossible to read as there is no continuity between sections that are dealing with the same characters, So for the first half of every chapter the reader is trying to get to grips with the new main character while also working out which kingdom they are in and how they related to the many, many other characters. It's just plain too confusing and exhausting as an actual narrative device.
And the characters themselves... I was expecting Martin to try everything possible to avoid any of the usual tropes, but no. Accepted there are no magicians, elves or pure-hearted swashbuckling heroes. But what is left is just the usual supporting cast - the bastard half brother with a grudge, the scheming dwarf, the wronged heir to the throne... there is absolutely nothing new or inventive in any of the characters.
What this book reminded me of most was the Harry Potter series. Completely derivative, averagely written and heavily marketed fantasy stories eagerly consumed by people who don't actually read fantasy. To those who do read fantasy this is such a poor relation to the other fine works that have been published in the last 30 years it's not even worth considering.
If you have never read this, don't bother. Instead do yourself a favour and pick up something that actually has something to say and contains some truly interesting characters and worlds. Joe Abercrombie or Mark Lawrence, for example.
But this book has put an end to that. As a fan of writers such as Joe Abercrombie who cite this series and George R R Martin as a big influence, I thought I should give this a read. After all, with so many plaudits and a hit television show it couldn't be that bad, could it.
Unfortunately it could. I liked the prologue - that was interesting to read and had some good writing and interesting characters in it. The one star is purely for this part of the book. Treat it as a short story and ignore the rest of the weighty tome and you won't go far wrong.
From this point forward nothing works. I can see that Martin was trying to inject a bit of reality and grit into fantasy, though it could be argues it had not exactly been all sunlight, dancing elves and heroes with rippling muscles for several decades so I don't see it as the massive change in direction it has been touted as in some quarters.
What we have is a succession of dreary, uninteresting characters taking part in a series of dull and stilted conversations attempting to create some sort of dramatic tension simply by existing. And then quite often there will be sex, not for any reason other than it seems this is what Martin thinks makes characters interesting. And the sex scenes are really, really awful. They read as if an over-excited 15 year old boy has written them.
The structure - where each chapter is told from the point of view of a different character - probably sounded really good on paper. But the end result is almost impossible to read as there is no continuity between sections that are dealing with the same characters, So for the first half of every chapter the reader is trying to get to grips with the new main character while also working out which kingdom they are in and how they related to the many, many other characters. It's just plain too confusing and exhausting as an actual narrative device.
And the characters themselves... I was expecting Martin to try everything possible to avoid any of the usual tropes, but no. Accepted there are no magicians, elves or pure-hearted swashbuckling heroes. But what is left is just the usual supporting cast - the bastard half brother with a grudge, the scheming dwarf, the wronged heir to the throne... there is absolutely nothing new or inventive in any of the characters.
What this book reminded me of most was the Harry Potter series. Completely derivative, averagely written and heavily marketed fantasy stories eagerly consumed by people who don't actually read fantasy. To those who do read fantasy this is such a poor relation to the other fine works that have been published in the last 30 years it's not even worth considering.
If you have never read this, don't bother. Instead do yourself a favour and pick up something that actually has something to say and contains some truly interesting characters and worlds. Joe Abercrombie or Mark Lawrence, for example.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated As Above So Below (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The film “As above so below” is part horror, part treasure adventure, and
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
all shaky cam. This found-footage film could also be more aptly titled as
“Lara Croft goes to hell.” The story centers around an excitable young
adventurer with a British accent named Scarlett on a search for the
mythological Philosopher’s Stone. A self-professed scholar of alchemy, she
hopes proving that the stone exists will fulfill her father’s legacy and
prove to the world that he wasn’t crazy. This search leads her and her
partners through the secret areas of the haunted catacombs of Pairs, France
into what could be hell itself. The movie starts with her traveling to Iran
for clues on the location of the Philosopher’s Stone.
The action opens without introductions which I enjoyed, as it gets right
into the action and sets the a good pace for the rest of the film. After
retrieving clues to the location of the stone and narrowly avoiding
security and a cave-in in Iran, our heroine sets off to Paris, France to
gather the rest of the crew for her adventure (the rest of our films
characters). These characters include her old friend Benji, a translator, a
group of French miscreants: Papillion (the leader), Zed and Souxie (the
Banshee, no kidding) all of whom are experts on the secret underground
catacombs. Her loyal documentarian George rounds out the crew who has
followed her around since the film’s opening shot.
Up until this point, the horror element of this film is non-existent. Once
the crew journey into the secret catacombs is when things begin to get
eerie. Plot and circumstance is good and all, but it’s a horror movie, is
it scary? Well, I wasn’t scared at all, neither was my wife whom I saw the
movie with. I’d call it more of a psychological thriller, a slight one at
that. Lots of supernatural happenings occur in the caverns akin to what
you’d find in a haunted house movie. Things like phone’s ringing
inexplicably in an area devoid of electricity and hundreds of feet below
the ground, spooky ghost like figures chanting occult hymns, and dead
drowned children. There isn’t much gore in this film, the little found is
reserved for the last 3rd of the movie. Some fear and wince inducing
moments are supplied via claustrophobia as the group squeezes themselves
through tight corridors and underwater channels. They did a pretty good job
of getting your heart racing. These scenes were reminiscent of a greater
horror entry “The Descent.” If you’ve seen that film, then you know what to
expect when it comes to the 1st person moments of claustrophobia.
Once in the catacombs what follows is a maze of twists and turns and
strange occurrences as the crew tries to solve the mystery of the hidden
Philosopher’s Stone as one by one the crew members get killed off in their
attempt to escape the demonic maze of underground tunnels. As for the
ending? Well prepare to be underwhelmed. The definitive worst part of the
film is its ending. It is so mundane and handled extremely poorly as to
come to an abrupt and seemingly rushed finish without any sense of
accomplishment or endearment to any of the characters or what they have
been through. Although they don’t all make it out alive (naturally this is
a horror film) those that do give off the impression of a group that has
just passed out of the end of a haunted house maze similar to those at the
upcoming Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Studios.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judas and the Black Messiah (2021) in Movies
Apr 25, 2021
Kaluuya and Stanfield excel (1 more)
Great US history lesson on the Black Panther movement
"Politics is war without bloodshed"
The ‘Judas’ in “Judas and the Black Messiah” is Bill O’Neil (LaKeith Stanfield). He works as an informer for FBI man Mitchell (Jesse Plemons), who has him over a barrel for impersonating an FBI officer. Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) runs the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther party and O’Neil is a trusted comrade on the inside.
Will O’Neil – always concerned that ‘snitches get stiches’ – stay on the side of ‘the pigs’, or be influenced by the ideals and good deeds of Chairman Fred?
Positives:
- Before this movie, I really had no idea what the Black Panthers were or how they operated. (If pushed, I would have tagged them as “internal terrorists” or similar). So this movie was really valuable to me in further understanding their role as a political movement. And their use of community programmes – focused, for example, around child nutrition and health improvements in inner cities – was a revelation.
- Given the BLM movement, and further ‘blue-on-black’ shootings, the film is timely. (Even more so for me, since the George Floyd trial verdict came out last night). “The United States vs Billie Holiday” showed how brutally the civil rights movement was put down by the authorities in the 40’s. This shows the same thing happened in the 70’s too. It’s again a movie that leaves you angry and frustrated at how poorly the black community have been abused in America. I guess counter to that is the positive view that things HAVE evidently improved significantly since then, albeit that the US is still on this journey.
- Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscars are both Stanfield and Kaluuya. (This is a highly debatable point, since arguably both of these gents are lead actors in the movie!) Both of them deliver outstanding performances, and Kaluuya has already picked up the BAFTA. Kaluuya demonstrates a huge amount of energy and charisma, particularly during the delivery of his stirring speeches. But Stanfield delivers a superbly nuanced performance, and perhaps impressed me even more.
- Also deserved, in a movie predominantly featuring a black cast, is recognition of the ever-excellent Jesse Plemons. As the steely-eyed FBI family man, he’s chilling to watch.
Negatives:
- I had issues with the sound mixing here. I found some of the dialogue – already hard for me to follow sometimes due to the speed of delivery and the accents – drowned out by background music and foley sounds.
- Martin Sheen’s make-up as J. Edgar Hoover was rather over-the-top and detracted from the role. (Sheen is in little more than a few cameo scenes).
Summary Thoughts:
I’m pleased I’ve managed to see this impressive Oscar contender before Sunday’s Academy Awards event. Interestingly, I noticed that historical advisors on the movie were Deborah Johnson (played here beautifully by Dominique Fishback) and the baby she was carrying (now Fred Hampton Jnr.).
As well as the two Supporting Actor nominations, it’s also up for Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Sean Bobbitt) and Best Song (for “Fight for You”, played over the end titles, and very good).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/judas-and-the-black-messiah-war-is-politics-with-bloodshed/. Thanks.)
Will O’Neil – always concerned that ‘snitches get stiches’ – stay on the side of ‘the pigs’, or be influenced by the ideals and good deeds of Chairman Fred?
Positives:
- Before this movie, I really had no idea what the Black Panthers were or how they operated. (If pushed, I would have tagged them as “internal terrorists” or similar). So this movie was really valuable to me in further understanding their role as a political movement. And their use of community programmes – focused, for example, around child nutrition and health improvements in inner cities – was a revelation.
- Given the BLM movement, and further ‘blue-on-black’ shootings, the film is timely. (Even more so for me, since the George Floyd trial verdict came out last night). “The United States vs Billie Holiday” showed how brutally the civil rights movement was put down by the authorities in the 40’s. This shows the same thing happened in the 70’s too. It’s again a movie that leaves you angry and frustrated at how poorly the black community have been abused in America. I guess counter to that is the positive view that things HAVE evidently improved significantly since then, albeit that the US is still on this journey.
- Nominated for Best Supporting Actor Oscars are both Stanfield and Kaluuya. (This is a highly debatable point, since arguably both of these gents are lead actors in the movie!) Both of them deliver outstanding performances, and Kaluuya has already picked up the BAFTA. Kaluuya demonstrates a huge amount of energy and charisma, particularly during the delivery of his stirring speeches. But Stanfield delivers a superbly nuanced performance, and perhaps impressed me even more.
- Also deserved, in a movie predominantly featuring a black cast, is recognition of the ever-excellent Jesse Plemons. As the steely-eyed FBI family man, he’s chilling to watch.
Negatives:
- I had issues with the sound mixing here. I found some of the dialogue – already hard for me to follow sometimes due to the speed of delivery and the accents – drowned out by background music and foley sounds.
- Martin Sheen’s make-up as J. Edgar Hoover was rather over-the-top and detracted from the role. (Sheen is in little more than a few cameo scenes).
Summary Thoughts:
I’m pleased I’ve managed to see this impressive Oscar contender before Sunday’s Academy Awards event. Interestingly, I noticed that historical advisors on the movie were Deborah Johnson (played here beautifully by Dominique Fishback) and the baby she was carrying (now Fred Hampton Jnr.).
As well as the two Supporting Actor nominations, it’s also up for Best Film, Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Sean Bobbitt) and Best Song (for “Fight for You”, played over the end titles, and very good).
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/21/judas-and-the-black-messiah-war-is-politics-with-bloodshed/. Thanks.)
Debbiereadsbook (1102 KP) rated Charles (Learning to Love #1) in Books
Jul 28, 2021
deep and complex emotions involved, but I loved it!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarain, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Once upon a time, there was a reader much like yourself. She read for pleasure, but also had fallen down the slippery slope of reading to review, so every book she read needed a review written. Fun, but hard work sometimes, especially when said reader found herself in a book funk of EPIC proportions, and that almost every book she read, was dumped.
Then THIS book landed in her queue to read and review. There had been lots of books dumped this past week, and there weren't many review books in her queue, but this one was asked for ages ago, and so she wanted to read it. So on a quiet evening at work, she jumped in.
And she was pulled back into the small Cornish village that this book is set, the same one that feature in the HIS series, and she was pulled deeper and deeper and she did not stop reading! Well, she did, but only because she was at work! Going home, and she finished this book, staying up waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay past her bedtime, and she loved it!
She loved Charles. Charles is the third son of an Earl, but he just wants to use his degree to help children who might slip through the net, much like he did. His undiagnosed dyslexia meant he did not get the help he needed as a child, and he doesn't want that for another child. He sees the world differently and wants to help. Applying for the teachers job for a group of 4/5 year olds is his dream job. But the head doesn't think Charles is qualified enough but offers Charles a different sort of job. To bring a smile to his friend's face again.
The reader loved Hugo too. Even though Hugo isn't given a voice, the reader heard him good and well when he speaks. When he touches Charles, when Charles touches him. Hugo was HEARD. Hugo's calling is questioned but his faith is not. He needs to make a decision about fully committing to the church, but he also needs to heal first. Charles helps him to heal, inside and out.
The reader loved that Hugo doesn't hold Charles' history against him. Loved the fact that Hugo almost embraced it. The reader was made to cry. Charles has a deep soul, and he wears his emotions on his face and Hugo sees Charles, really SEES him.
The reader loved that Kier and Mitch, from His Haven. Charles and Kier are best friends. Loved that Kier saw Charles too, just in a different way to Hugo. The reader loved that Charles and his brother George got on soooooooooo much better towards the end of the book than the beginning!
The reader found this a very emotional book. Whether that was because of Charles, or Hugo or them both together, she wasn't quite sure, but she loved that it was. There are deep and complex emotions in this book, and it made the reader slow her reading down, to fully appreciate them.
And the epilogue?? Oh, the reader bawled her heart out at that, she really did!
So, all in all, the reader LOVED this book! The reader wants more of this author!
And the reader lived happily ever after, because lots of this author's books are now settled on her kindle!
The end, with 5 full and shiny stars!
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Captain Fantastic (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Dysfunctionally functional.
The second of my catch-up films for next Sunday’s Oscars, this time featuring Viggo Mortensen who is up for a Best Actor Oscar.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
“Captain Fantastic” starts with a dramatic hunting expedition introducing us to the unusual Cash family. Dad Ben (Viggo Mortensen) is bringing up his six kids – Bodevan, Kielyr, Vespyr, Rellian, Zaja and Nai – in the wilds of Washington state. Ben takes home-schooling to a completely new level, with intense study and examinations in quantum physics, philosophy and politics matched with a militaristic approach to weapons-training and physical fitness. Ben also teaches extreme self-sufficiency, most evident during a dramatic rock-climbing sequence.
Where is their mum in all of this? That would be a spoiler (so don’t watch the trailer either) but is central to the plot as the family board their old camper van – “Steve” – on a road trip back to the ‘real world’ and the children’s grandparents – the crusty and assertive Jack (a marvellous Frank Langella) and Abigail (Ann Dowd). What follows is filled with black humour, tragedy, not just one but two amazing funeral services and one of the most extraordinarily black and comic laying-to-rests ever seen on the big screen.
Viggo Mortensen is… well… fantastic in his portrayal, getting to run the full gamut of joy, grief, self-doubt, guilt and despair during the movie’s run-time. He’s clearly not going to win the Oscar on Sunday – surely Casey Affleck must be a slam-dunk for that – but this is a well-judged nomination by the Academy.
While the focus is on Mortensen, this shouldn’t overshadow the performances of some of the rest of the young cast, and I would specifically call out those of George MacKay and young Shree Crooks as the youngest of the kids. MacKay has been building up an impressive run of UK-based films with “Sunshine on Leith” and “Pride” but with this (and his key role in the recent TV mini-series “11.22.63”) he should see a break-through to more mainstream feature roles. In “Captain Fantastic” his socially-inept proposal to the delectable Claire (Erin Moriaty) is one of the high-points of the film. He is a name to watch, for sure.
And young Ms Crooks should be given a special honorary Oscar for the ability to learn such dense portions of script and deliver them so faultlessly!
The whole cast in fact was nominated for the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture – one of my favourite award categories, but beaten by “Hidden Figures”. And it is that sort of film: a really great ensemble effort.
The film is written and directed by Matt Ross, only his second feature since 2012’s “28 Hotel Rooms” (which I was not aware of, but would now like to seek out). I thought it was terrific; deeply comedic; riveting from beginning to end; a roller-coaster of emotion and ultimately a feelgood classic on the value of family that I will remember fondly for a long time. Once again, the second film this week, that would have made me reconsider my “top films of 2016” list. I strongly recommend that you seek this out on download or DVD and give it a try.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)