Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Payback (1999) in Movies
Jul 15, 2020
Get Ready To Root For The Bad Guy
Payback- is a intresting revenge action thriller. Maybe its me, but i fell like this movie is boring. Its good, but some what boring, like nothing going on. Also its kinda of confusing, again it might just be me, but i fell like its confusing as well. Like i said before its good, but in the end its both boring and confusing.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
The plot: Porter (Mel Gibson) is a thief betrayed by both his wife, Lynn (Deborah Kara Unger), and his partner, Val (Gregg Henry), when he is shot in the back after a heist. Slowly, Porter recovers from his wounds and begins a search for Val, intent on recovering his share of the money they stole together. With the aid of prostitute Rosie (Maria Bello), Porter captures Val but still cannot find his cash. For this, Porter will have to challenge an imposing crime syndicate called the Outfit.
Although credited as director, Brian Helgeland's cut of the film was not the theatrical version released to audiences. After the end of principal photography, Helgeland's version was deemed too dark for the mainstream public. Following a script rewrite by Terry Hayes, director Helgeland was replaced by the production designer John Myhre, who reshot 30% of the film. The intent was to make the Porter character accessible. The film's tagline became: "Get Ready to Root for the Bad Guy." A potentially controversial scene between Porter and Lynn which arguably involves spousal abuse was excised and more plot elements were added to the third act. After 10 days of reshoots, a new opening scene and voiceover track also were added, and Kris Kristofferson walked on as a new villain.
The Director's Cut version features a female Bronson, that is never seen only heard over the phone voiced by Sally Kellerman, does not include the voice-over by Porter and several Bronson-related scenes. During their scuffle (which is longer than in the theatrical version and was the main source of controversy), Porter earlier tells Lynn that his picture with Rosie was taken before they met, thereby rendering her jealousy unjustified. This version has an entirely different, ambiguous ending where Porter is seriously wounded in a train station shootout and driven off by Rosie.
A June 4, 2012, look at "movies improved by directors' cuts" by The A.V. Club described Payback: Straight Up as "a marked improvement on the unrulier original.
Mel Gibson stated in a short interview released as a DVD extra that it "would've been ideal to shoot in black and white." He noted that "people want a color image" and that the actual film used a bleach bypass process to tint the film. In addition to this, the production design used muted shades of red, brown, and grey for costumes, sets, and cars for further effect.
Like i said its a good revenge action thriller but to me its both boring and confusing. Maybe i have to watch the directors cut.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 18, 2020
A Winning (enough) combination
I'm a sucker for Sherlock Holmes. I grew up watching the fantastic black and white Holmes films from the 1940's starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. I checked out '70's Holmes flicks like MURDER BY DECREE and the 7 PERCENT SOLUTION and then re-fell-in-love with Holmes with the Jeremy Brett BBC SHERLOCK HOLMES TV series of the 1980's and, of course, Benedict Cumberbatch's modern take on the master sleuth in the 2000's was "must see TV" for me. I was even on-board with Robert Downey Jr's. "take" on this iconic sleuth and was thrilled when Sir Ian McKellen portrayed an elderly Sherlock Holmes in MR. HOLMES.
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I eagerly awaited the Netflix treatment of the "younger" sister of Sherlock Holmes in ENOLA HOLMES -and, I gotta say, I wasn't disappointed.
Based on the Young Adult series of novels by Nancy Springer, ENOLA HOLMES introduces us to the (heretofore unknown) younger sister of Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes. Raised by a fiercely independent mother in the late 1880's, Enola goes searching for her when she goes missing and gets mixed up in the "The Case of the Missing Marquess" along the way.
Millie Bobbie Brown (STRANGER THINGS) is a winning, charismatic (enough) performer as Enola. She is a steady and sure hand at the helm of this ship throughout the course of this 2 hour and 3 minute adventure. While I would have liked her to command the screen more with her presence, she does enough to make it a good, solid, effort.
The supporting cast is just as good. Helena Bonham Carter (FIGHT CLUB) is perfectly cast as Enola's (and Sherlock's and Mycroft's) mother - she has that fierce streak of independence and "don't mess with me" energy while carving her own path. She is the type of character that one would go looking for if she went missing. Sam Claflin (HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE) is finely unrecognizable (at least to me) as Mycroft - written in this piece as the more "traditional" of the Holmes family and Henry Cavill (MAN OF STEEL) brings a strong arrogance to his portrayal of Sherlock. He also brings something else - heart - to this character, a character trait that has "traditional" fans of this character up in arms. For me, it works well in the context of this film.
As for the film itself - it is good (enough). I found myself enjoying the mystery and the characters and enjoyed my time in this world. It's not anything new, but it's like putting on a pair of old shoes - comforting to wear.
This is an adaptation of the first book of the series, and I, for one, hope that there are more. It's a winning combination that was pleasant to watch.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Midway (2019) in Movies
Aug 10, 2020
So bad...it's bad
There are times when you watch a film and you can just hear the conference room discussion that happened back at the studio before getting it green-lit...
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Studio Flunky: "Remember the 1970's WWII flick MIDWAY starring Henry Fonda, Charlton Heston, Charles Coborn, Richard Mitchum and an All Star cast"?
Studio Head: "Yeah...I loved that flick..."
Studio Flunky: "We have a fairly weak script here that pretty much rips that off, but we have the Director of Independence Day ready to Direct, so we'd just need some strong actors and top notch special effects to pull it off".
Studio Head: " I love it. Just one thing..."
Studio Flunky: "What's that?"
Studio Head: "Cut the budget to about 1/10th of what you're asking for."
And that's the issue with the Roland Emrich 2019 version of MIDWAY...what the film lacks in script quality, it makes up with by casting weak actors and crossing them with cheap special effects.
Yeah...it doesn't work very well. No wonder it came and went pretty quickly in the theaters.
Patrick Wilson is the most successful in this film in his role as Intelligence Officer Edwin Layton who figures out what the Japanese are up to in the early days of World War II. He has some fun scenes with Brennan Brown as one of this "codebreakers" and his interactions with Woody Harrelson as Admiral Nimitz are fun.
And...that's about it for the acting and interesting things in this film. Harrelson is wasted in his role (he clearly owed someone a favor to appear in what should be considered and extended cameo). Dennis Quaid overacts (as he is want to do) as "Bull" Halsey. Mandy Moore, Aaron Eckhart, Nick Jonas and Luke Evans bring no charisma to roles that were written with the hopes that an actor would bring charisma to them. They all bring "one dimension" and play the heck out of that singular character trait...but interesting characters that does not build.
And then there is the case of Ed Skrein (in the Charlton Heston role) as the "rogue fighter pilot, bucking the system, but learning through the course of this film that he would be more effective bringing his unique insights into the system than buck it". Skrein is my poster child for "warning...bad movie ahead." He has, in my opinion, "anti-charisma". He sucks a movie into his void and we, the audience, are stuck there with him. Of course, we spend most of the film with him...much to my chagrin.
At least, you say, today's special effects would rescue this film.
Nope...it looked like someone's kid slapped something together on his MAC. The depth of the EFX are slim, the color schemes don't seem to match and the actors didn't look at all like they were in the scene with the effects.
Nothing really works in this film. Avoid it at all costs. I can't even give you the "it's so bad it's good" line on this one.
It's so bad, it's bad.
Letter Grade "D"
2 Stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Revived in Books
Jan 23, 2020
I must be the sad opposite corner of book club. NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE LOVED REVIVED AND I DIDN'T.
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Oh wait. You guys totally feel my pain... right? At least, when it comes to bestselling novels and what not?
Here's my impression of this year's Gateway Readers Award nominees:
<b>2014-15 GATEWAY READERS AWARD NOMINEES</b>
Of Poseidon by Anna Banks Eh... sounds very romancy.
Croak by Gina Damico I have this book and wasn't able to read it last month. :(
Something Like Normal by Trish Doller Nope.
Don't Turn Around by Michelle Gagnon Consider me very interested.
The Fault in Our Stars by John Green Completed. Me thinks this is overrated. I'm sure Ella agrees.
Burning Blue by Paul Griffin Meh.
The Night She Disappeared by April Henry Meh.
Every Day by David Levithan Probably as overrated as TFIOS.
Revived by Cat Patrick I'm discussing this in the next few minutes. Go figure.
Starters by Lissa Price NOPE.
Trafficked by Kim Purcell My comment about this made favorite book club moment for one of my friends.
Boy21 by Matthew Quick ha. Ha. HA. Yeah... NO.
Dark Eyes by William Richter Meh.
Article 5 by Kristen Simmons Consider me a tad interested.
Breaking Beautiful by Jennifer Shaw Wolf Hello? Sophia + Contemporary = No, no, nooo, don't mess with my heart. Yes, that's a song.
I envy the middle schoolers. They have better nominees (Truman Readers Award). :p
I was overly hesitant with reading Revived. I mean, a girl dies at a really young age and became a guinea pig in this program that brings dead people back to life. Great! But honestly, do I care? No... not really. It's like Zach's Lie and Jack's Run with the name changes and "witness protection program" (not necessarily the latter, but it feels like it). It's like Falls the Shadow with the "experiment," and since the idea seems a little similar to that particular book (minus clones. That concept is used in Patrick's The Originals.), I pretty much knew I would be treading on thin ice if I read the book. Very thin ice, because this could go a few ways:
1. It would be absolutely magnifique! As a result, I'll be fangirling with Kahlan and Co.
2. I would find it predictable. But the thing is, most books ARE predictable to me. Lupe and Small Co. warned me of this.
3. WHYYYYY. *wails*
Here's the truth in paragraph format (oh, and technically, the review):
Revived wasn't a waste of my time, but I just don't like the book. I mainly don't like this entire analogy of "God" and "Jesus" and "Converts" and "Disciples" being used. I just don't. I get the analogy I mean, only someone as divine as God can actually bring back the "dead." Really, it's as bad as learning about the Puritans an absolute nightmare (even though Honors American Literature tests are the only reasons WHY my grade is climbing quickly). Plus, I try to tread very carefully with these topics.
I also found Revived pretty predictable. By page 88, there were two sentences that pretty much gave the entire plot away:
<blockquote>If God says we move, there's nothing Mason can do about it. If God says we move, we move.</blockquote>
Tell me that doesn't make you ask questions. The first comment I had? So basically if God says you die, you die? In treading very carefully on delicate topics, yes, this is true. In relation to the book, this so called God is what? A person! Tell me if you would actually be willing to die for a random stranger who you a) have no clue WHO it actually is, b) WHAT he looks like, and c) doesn't he sound like a person with an over-inflated ego?
I honestly didn't like the way the story would actually go from then on out. My second point bull's eye was the newspaper article Daisy shows Matt about what really happened to her and 20 others:
<blockquote> after a Brown Academy bus drove over Highway 13 bridge and plummeted into icy...</blockquote>
Heh. Sounds fishy. One does not simply drive over a highway bridge and "plummet" into a lake. True, true, there may have been a patch of ice, but here's the thing: snow plowers usually plow and salt highways first. So the chances of a bus just "driving" over a highway bridge sounds quite fishy unless it was done on purpose... by "God." Or, the bus driver was suicidal. But why kill a bunch of little kids?
Add to the fact that "police have not determined the cause of the collision..." Had there really been a patch of ice, it wouldn't just simply disappear right away. Or would it?
Finally, I don't get the end. Not really. I see some loopholes to the end here. What if Matt accidentally calls Daisy by her real name and not what everyone else knows her to be? (There was also one more question, but I can't post it without giving away HUGE spoilers.) I would actually love to see a second epilogue in regards to this to be honest.
But really. Had I been screeching about WHY I wasted my time, this wouldn't be called, "Review: Revived by Cat Patrick."
-------------------------
Original Rating: 2.5 out of 5
Original Review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/review-revived-by-cat-patrick.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>