Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
The story. (3 more)
The writing.
Thomas Fawkes.
The emotions I went through reading this. (Yes it's here twice for a reason.)
A gripping, heartfelt historical read that will take you on an adventure.
When I first picked up Fawkes by Nadine Brandes, it was for a blog tour that I was lucky enough to get (thank you so much!). I started reading it and only got three chapters read before I had to put it down because I just. Could. Not. Get. Into. It. I'm awfully glad that I picked it back up to actually reread the first three chapters and finish the book because this is my favorite book of September.
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Legit, this is a five-star read for me. There's so much sarcasm, humor, history packed into this little story that I just didn't want it to end. If Nadine Brandes ever creates a second book regarding this storyline, I will be the first person to buy it and support it. Because dang woman, you have a way to make me tear up and then get all angry at a character in a matter of pages.
Okay, let's talk about some of these humorous quotes that I just can't get over.
"If you do not agree to all my terms, Thomas Fawkes, then I shall tell my guardian that you forced yourself upon me and - after he castrates you - he will string you up on the gallows without a tongue!" Okay Emma, he knows not to mess with you. You strong and independent amazing human being. I think I love you. (Can you actually fall in love with a fictional character?)
" ' There's no we,' Kit muttered in Jack's ear. 'Percy didn't even detect an intruder - the boy did.' " - SHOTS FIRED!
" 'Annika! Gabriel! Do you want to turn to stone?' " I just think this is so funny but it's true. Like you keep messing with that plagued rat, you ain't gonna look much different.
Can we talk about how descriptive Nadine is with things?! Like for real, I haven't heard anybody talking about that! So, without further adieu here are some of my favorite descriptive quotes:
"The darkness twisted invisible chains around my chest." Holy poopers. Like dang. This is a great representation of anxiety if anybody wants to know.
" 'His past is not without its bloodstains.' I joined him at the window. The grime rested too thickly for us to see out into the night. Another thing for me to clean upon the morrow. ' Should we do something?' 'Our fists are no match for a rabid mutt's teeth. We must leave a man's actions to his one conscience.' " Okay, I got chills when reading this. This is one serious moment but at the same time a jab at how gross London used to be.
"A line of freckles ascended from her left upper lip and ended beneath her eye... like a constellation on a night sky." I dig it and what a way to describe somebody's feature. I wish my husband was all gooey like Thomas Fawkes when it came to Emma.
The next few quotes are moments where I had to stop reading and just think, because they hit me with a burning passion for making me emotional.
"He said that he must bring on only those men who were necessary to the plot's fulfillment. The men who were irreplaceable. That spoke volumes about each man he'd chosen. Because he'd chosen me." Thomas is wanted, not just by his father but by a group of men that become his family. I feel you Thomas, you emotional man.
"I wanted my mask because I was ashamed of what people saw when they looked at me. I hated being defined by my plague and I was sick of being helpless. I wanted a future." STAY AWAY FROM MY THOMAS YOU NUGGETS. I KNOW KARATE AND I WILL USE IT. But seriously, why you gotta be so mean?
"If I was as inconspicuous as Catesby said I would be... why not simply kill the king on my own? In fact, why not turn his masquerade into an assassination?" Thomas you smart man. But don't go getting yourself killed. Emma (and I) need you to survive and stay with her (us).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Raid 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
In 2011, and independent action film from Indonesia arrived with little to no fanfare and soon became an international sensation. From writer-director Gareth Evans, and featuring a cast of unknown performers, “The Raid” set new standards for cop dramas. From the dark and dangerous criminal underworld in which the film takes place to the brutal and jaw-dropping highly choreographed fight scenes the film was hard to ignore.
Thanks in large part to DVD, the film gained a larger audience thanks to word-of-mouth and now the second in a planned trilogy has been released which ups the action to new levels of hyper connectivity and ultraviolent action.
The Raid 2: Berendal” takes place shortly after the events the first film where officer Rama (Iko Uwais), learns that his exploits in surviving the first film have only increased the danger facing him and his family as the corruption he exposed has made him a target with much more dangerous criminals higher up the food chain. Although he barely survived the events of the first film, Rama agrees to go undercover in a brutal prison in order to keep his family safe and get close to a key individual whose father is one of the biggest crime lords in the region.
His amazing combat skills are tested early and often in prison yet Rama is able to achieve this objective and becomes trusted associate in the crime syndicate following his release thanks to the contacts he made during his incarceration.
Unfortunately for Rama a power struggle is enfolding between son and father as the ambitious son is eager to take a larger slice of his father’s empire even if it means declaring war on the rival families. The film spends a good part of its first hour introducing the characters and setting the tables for the final hour as it intersperses a few fast and brutal fight sequences between.
The final 45 min. the film are essentially one extended fight scene after another that is utterly captivating to watch and despite it’s at times graphic brutality, impossible to look away from. Like the previous film, the speed, precision, originality, and choreography of the fight sequences are truly unique and have set new standards for martial arts films to follow.
While the film is presented in the native Indonesian language with English subtitles, it is very easy to get drawn into the dark and deadly world in which the characters find themselves. Uwais proves that he’s more than just a skilled screen fighter as he infuses Rama with the complexity of the man driven by duty yet utterly devoted to keeping his wife and newborn son safe even when the cost puts him in constant danger and forces him to be away from them for long periods of time.
Evans keeps the action flowing and time and time again aside from the clever way that he introduces what would only be disposal characters by giving them unique and at times charming quirks and characteristics, produces action sequences that leave you wondering how they were able to film them and what kind of person would think up such sequences. My wife commented to me that her blood pressure my surely have been rising from the relentless pacing and nonstop action and tension of the film and the constant barrage of action scenes that while brutal never become repetitive or gratuitous.
The film will not be for everyone as the action is quite brutal and times graphic however the free-form choreography that made the original so memorable has been taken to new levels in the sequel which keeps the action fresh as much as the story and characters keep you riveted during the non-action segments of the film .
All I could say the film is not one for the masses I can easily say this is one of the more enjoyable and better films of the year to date and is one that should not be missed especially if you’re a fan of police dramas or action films.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/the-raid-2-berendal/
Thanks in large part to DVD, the film gained a larger audience thanks to word-of-mouth and now the second in a planned trilogy has been released which ups the action to new levels of hyper connectivity and ultraviolent action.
The Raid 2: Berendal” takes place shortly after the events the first film where officer Rama (Iko Uwais), learns that his exploits in surviving the first film have only increased the danger facing him and his family as the corruption he exposed has made him a target with much more dangerous criminals higher up the food chain. Although he barely survived the events of the first film, Rama agrees to go undercover in a brutal prison in order to keep his family safe and get close to a key individual whose father is one of the biggest crime lords in the region.
His amazing combat skills are tested early and often in prison yet Rama is able to achieve this objective and becomes trusted associate in the crime syndicate following his release thanks to the contacts he made during his incarceration.
Unfortunately for Rama a power struggle is enfolding between son and father as the ambitious son is eager to take a larger slice of his father’s empire even if it means declaring war on the rival families. The film spends a good part of its first hour introducing the characters and setting the tables for the final hour as it intersperses a few fast and brutal fight sequences between.
The final 45 min. the film are essentially one extended fight scene after another that is utterly captivating to watch and despite it’s at times graphic brutality, impossible to look away from. Like the previous film, the speed, precision, originality, and choreography of the fight sequences are truly unique and have set new standards for martial arts films to follow.
While the film is presented in the native Indonesian language with English subtitles, it is very easy to get drawn into the dark and deadly world in which the characters find themselves. Uwais proves that he’s more than just a skilled screen fighter as he infuses Rama with the complexity of the man driven by duty yet utterly devoted to keeping his wife and newborn son safe even when the cost puts him in constant danger and forces him to be away from them for long periods of time.
Evans keeps the action flowing and time and time again aside from the clever way that he introduces what would only be disposal characters by giving them unique and at times charming quirks and characteristics, produces action sequences that leave you wondering how they were able to film them and what kind of person would think up such sequences. My wife commented to me that her blood pressure my surely have been rising from the relentless pacing and nonstop action and tension of the film and the constant barrage of action scenes that while brutal never become repetitive or gratuitous.
The film will not be for everyone as the action is quite brutal and times graphic however the free-form choreography that made the original so memorable has been taken to new levels in the sequel which keeps the action fresh as much as the story and characters keep you riveted during the non-action segments of the film .
All I could say the film is not one for the masses I can easily say this is one of the more enjoyable and better films of the year to date and is one that should not be missed especially if you’re a fan of police dramas or action films.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/the-raid-2-berendal/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All the Boys Love Mandy Lane (2006) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane starts with a teenage house party where one of the cool kids tries to hit on the beautiful Mandy Lane (Heard) but when one of the boys chasing her dies in an attempt to impress her we see how close Mandy is to Emmet (Welch). 9 months have passed since the accident and Red (Himelstein) is arranging a party at his family’s ranch which will include the invitation of Mandy Lane.
We watch as a group of high school friends head off to a ranch for a weekend off fun with plenty or drinks, drugs and sex with all the boys after Mandy Lane. We watch as the friend go through the traditional high school relationship issues and adding in the alcohol we get everything elevated to the next level. The weekend away takes twist when somebody starts picking off the friends before we learn that there is a bigger motive behind everything that happens.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane really is just a bogged standard slasher film for the most part, but it does have an interesting twist you don’t see coming. The characters are very painful generic and the story just follows everything you would expect to see in a slasher film. The film tries something different with the ending which is the only positive about this film otherwise it really is just offer nothing new. (5/10)
Actor Review
Amber Heard: Mandy Lane is the gorgeous girl that all the high school guys want to be with but she is very independent not falling for any of the guys lines. She strikes jealousy between the friends who each believe they are in the driving seat to get her. Amber does a solid job in the role but clearly only works because of how beautiful she is. (6/10)
mandy
Anson Mount: Garth is the ranch hand on the ranch that all the girls fall for but he ends up planning babysitter to all of the high school kids who can’t handle their drinks. Anson does a basic job as the older wise protector of the film but doesn’t do enough with the whole story. (4/10)
Whitney Able: Chloe is the insecure member of the friends who thinks all the girls need a perfect skinny body to impress the guys. Whitney does end up being the very generic character that we are all expecting to get what is coming to her early on. (5/10)
Michael Welch: Emmet is Mandy’s old friend who is the guy picking off the popular kids to make them pay for what happened after the party incident. Michael plays the killer well using no remorse through the film. (6/10)
Support Cast: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has a supporting cast that is basically there just to be disposable and only become helpful to make Emmet look more crazed.
Director Review: Jonathan Levine – Jonathan does a solid job with the horror film because it follows the same old routine but throws you out of the comfort zone with the ending. (5/10)
Horror: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane follows all the slasher ABC style very easily. (8/10)
Settings: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts our characters in an isolated location for the horror to take place where the killer can get away with whatever they wants. (7/10)
Suggestion: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is one for the horror fans to enjoy otherwise it will just end up being very average. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Final Twist.
Worst Part: Nothing new in the opening part.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Most Slasher films.
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $750,000
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone is dying to be with her. Someone is killing for it.
Overall: Just another slasher that we have seen too many times before.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/10/02/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-all-the-boys-love-mandy-lane-2006/
We watch as a group of high school friends head off to a ranch for a weekend off fun with plenty or drinks, drugs and sex with all the boys after Mandy Lane. We watch as the friend go through the traditional high school relationship issues and adding in the alcohol we get everything elevated to the next level. The weekend away takes twist when somebody starts picking off the friends before we learn that there is a bigger motive behind everything that happens.
All the Boys Love Mandy Lane really is just a bogged standard slasher film for the most part, but it does have an interesting twist you don’t see coming. The characters are very painful generic and the story just follows everything you would expect to see in a slasher film. The film tries something different with the ending which is the only positive about this film otherwise it really is just offer nothing new. (5/10)
Actor Review
Amber Heard: Mandy Lane is the gorgeous girl that all the high school guys want to be with but she is very independent not falling for any of the guys lines. She strikes jealousy between the friends who each believe they are in the driving seat to get her. Amber does a solid job in the role but clearly only works because of how beautiful she is. (6/10)
mandy
Anson Mount: Garth is the ranch hand on the ranch that all the girls fall for but he ends up planning babysitter to all of the high school kids who can’t handle their drinks. Anson does a basic job as the older wise protector of the film but doesn’t do enough with the whole story. (4/10)
Whitney Able: Chloe is the insecure member of the friends who thinks all the girls need a perfect skinny body to impress the guys. Whitney does end up being the very generic character that we are all expecting to get what is coming to her early on. (5/10)
Michael Welch: Emmet is Mandy’s old friend who is the guy picking off the popular kids to make them pay for what happened after the party incident. Michael plays the killer well using no remorse through the film. (6/10)
Support Cast: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane has a supporting cast that is basically there just to be disposable and only become helpful to make Emmet look more crazed.
Director Review: Jonathan Levine – Jonathan does a solid job with the horror film because it follows the same old routine but throws you out of the comfort zone with the ending. (5/10)
Horror: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane follows all the slasher ABC style very easily. (8/10)
Settings: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane puts our characters in an isolated location for the horror to take place where the killer can get away with whatever they wants. (7/10)
Suggestion: All the Boys Love Mandy Lane is one for the horror fans to enjoy otherwise it will just end up being very average. (Horror Fans Try)
Best Part: Final Twist.
Worst Part: Nothing new in the opening part.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Most Slasher films.
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $750,000
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone is dying to be with her. Someone is killing for it.
Overall: Just another slasher that we have seen too many times before.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/10/02/movie-reviews-101-halloween-midnight-horror-all-the-boys-love-mandy-lane-2006/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Grindhouse (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Back in the 70’s cheaply made independent films often came into their own. The studio released films were drawing smaller audiences’ thanks in large part to the arrival of color television and a greater variety of entertainment that people could view in their homes.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
During this time, the Blaxploitation era as it became known, saw many films become big hits thanks to the films modest budgets and subject matter that was quite different from the films of the day. Aside from Blaxploitation, there were also sexploitation films as well as action and horror films that embraced the urban and youth cultures of the time and were loaded with sex, violence, and anti-establishment themes.
The films were often show nonstop in all night theaters known as “Grind houses”, where repeated showings of prints caused them to have image blemishes as films were usually shown in a city for a week before the same print was whisked off to a new city for even more wear and tear.
Inspired by the classic exploitation films of old, Directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez have teamed up to treat audience to a modern day ” Grind house” experience that comes complete with nostalgic intros and credits as well as movie trailers for exploitation films that the duo has not yet created.
The first film is “Planet Terror” and stars Rose McGowan as a Go Go Dancer named Cherry who is about to have a very bad night thanks to a deal gone wrong between a shadowy soldier (Bruce Willis), and a mysterious scientist (Naveen Andrews).
Before long, Cherry is minus a leg, and living in a town overrun by zombie like creatures, which forces her and a band of survivors to fight the deadly invaders to get to the bottom of the mystery.
The film is packed with gore, action, and enough cheesy lines to make even the most jaded moviegoer wince, yet all is done with loving reverence to the genre films that inspired it.
Rodriguez even includes little glitches in the film to give a sense of realism to the film. Were it not for the starts of today and some slightly better effects work, you could easily believe that this was a film from the era.
The second film is “Death Proof” and it stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike. A man who drives a souped up hotrod and spreads mayhem wherever he goes. While the film does not have much of the signature dialogue that marks past Tarantino films,
it does have its moments and is one of the most demented, and intense car chase stories you will ever see.
I have gone very light on the plot recaps as to be honest, the films both have paper thin plots and characters which do not really warrant much examination.
To do so would be to miss the point of Grind House as the goal was to create two modern exploitation films that were true in character and form to the films that inspired them. Yes, this film had a budget that could have created well over a thousand such films back in the day, and has more stars than Hollywood Bld. But despite this, still would be worthy of those famed theaters of old.
There were many times that I noted the bad acting, lines, and other problems in the films, but reminded myself that flaws were for the most part intended.
I compare the experience to watching “Mystery Science Theater 3000”, in that you need to be familiar with the types of film being featured in order to get the full benefit.
I for one really enjoyed myself and I loved the false trailers that were included in the film as it was great fun not only watching them, but seeing the big name stars who helped create them getting in on the fun.
If you set your expectations accordingly, than Grind House may be the most nostalgic fun you have had at the movies in a long time.
Debbiereadsbook (1087 KP) rated I've Got You in Books
Jul 3, 2019
a stunning follow up!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
This is sort of the second book in the set, Let Me Show You is the first, and you really should read that one, I think, to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter in that book, and why he feels so bad about himself in this one. Not totally NECESSARY, but I think it would help a great deal.
Scott was awful to Carter, and then came out to him, which made what Scott did all the worse. When Scott kisses Davis, Tanner’s best friend, at Carter and Tanner’s party, Scott runs. It takes a great deal of Carter to bring Scott out of himself. Davis is profoundly affected by that kiss, and he knows what Scott did to Carter was bad, but when Davis sees Scott, really SEES deep into his eyes, Davis knows Scott is desperately unhappy with his lot. But can the newly outed vet be happy with the single dad? Can he be happy, at ALL?
Like I said, I think it would help a great deal to read Carter and Tanner’s book before this one. If only to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter, and why Tanner is reluctant to forgive Scott, even if Carter does, and just why Scott hates himself so much. You need that bigger picture, I think. Just my personal opinion, is all.
Scott is hurting. He knows what he did was wrong, and the fact that Carter has taken it upon himself to become Scott’s best friend shocks him but gives him hope. He doesn’t know if he will ever be truly happy with himself for that, but he has to try. Meeting Davis at Carter and Tanner’s party was a bit of a revelation. He doesn’t know why he kissed Davis, but he liked it, a lot. Getting to know Davis seems like a good idea, but a deeply scary one for Scott, especially since Davis has a baby daughter.
Davis is lovely! I loved his patience with Scott, he knows Scott is hurting, and he knows Scott is newly out, so he understands explaining stuff is hard work, but very quickly, very early on, Davis knows Scott is the man for him. He just has to bide his time while Scott gets himself sorted. When Scott comes to work in Davis’ coffee shop, it gives Davis the ideal opportunity to get close to Scott. And when Scott meets Libby?? Davis is smitten, deeply!
There is, for Scott, a great deal of soul-searching in this book. Davis is an open book here and Scott is not. It takes time for Scott to come out of himself, and for the relationship between Davis and Scott to develop and I loved that. In Carter and Tanner’s review, I said I loved being made to wait for the main event but here? I wasn’t even sure we would GET the main event! It’s a close thing, I tell ya. But it’s right and proper that these two take their time, and get to know each other properly, I think.
It has some sexy time, some deeply emotional time, some funny moments and some shocking ones. Both Davis and Scott have their say, in the first person. Both voices are very different, and each change is clearly headed at the beginning of a chapter.
It also has some very homophobic comments from a shocking source, where you don’t expect them, but once you know, you understand why Scott was in a bad place before.
We leave this little town, with Scott and Davis, and Carter and Tanner happily settling down to their new lives together. We also get to meet Scott’s sister. I’d like her to be happy too. She had it tough for a long time, and reconnecting with Scott gives her the courage to do something about her life. She deserves the kind of happiness her brother has found, too, please Ms Seymour!
Not quite as warm and fuzzies and too stinking cute as Let Me Some You, but it’s a very close thing! Still. . .
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
This is sort of the second book in the set, Let Me Show You is the first, and you really should read that one, I think, to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter in that book, and why he feels so bad about himself in this one. Not totally NECESSARY, but I think it would help a great deal.
Scott was awful to Carter, and then came out to him, which made what Scott did all the worse. When Scott kisses Davis, Tanner’s best friend, at Carter and Tanner’s party, Scott runs. It takes a great deal of Carter to bring Scott out of himself. Davis is profoundly affected by that kiss, and he knows what Scott did to Carter was bad, but when Davis sees Scott, really SEES deep into his eyes, Davis knows Scott is desperately unhappy with his lot. But can the newly outed vet be happy with the single dad? Can he be happy, at ALL?
Like I said, I think it would help a great deal to read Carter and Tanner’s book before this one. If only to give you the full picture of what Scott did to Carter, and why Tanner is reluctant to forgive Scott, even if Carter does, and just why Scott hates himself so much. You need that bigger picture, I think. Just my personal opinion, is all.
Scott is hurting. He knows what he did was wrong, and the fact that Carter has taken it upon himself to become Scott’s best friend shocks him but gives him hope. He doesn’t know if he will ever be truly happy with himself for that, but he has to try. Meeting Davis at Carter and Tanner’s party was a bit of a revelation. He doesn’t know why he kissed Davis, but he liked it, a lot. Getting to know Davis seems like a good idea, but a deeply scary one for Scott, especially since Davis has a baby daughter.
Davis is lovely! I loved his patience with Scott, he knows Scott is hurting, and he knows Scott is newly out, so he understands explaining stuff is hard work, but very quickly, very early on, Davis knows Scott is the man for him. He just has to bide his time while Scott gets himself sorted. When Scott comes to work in Davis’ coffee shop, it gives Davis the ideal opportunity to get close to Scott. And when Scott meets Libby?? Davis is smitten, deeply!
There is, for Scott, a great deal of soul-searching in this book. Davis is an open book here and Scott is not. It takes time for Scott to come out of himself, and for the relationship between Davis and Scott to develop and I loved that. In Carter and Tanner’s review, I said I loved being made to wait for the main event but here? I wasn’t even sure we would GET the main event! It’s a close thing, I tell ya. But it’s right and proper that these two take their time, and get to know each other properly, I think.
It has some sexy time, some deeply emotional time, some funny moments and some shocking ones. Both Davis and Scott have their say, in the first person. Both voices are very different, and each change is clearly headed at the beginning of a chapter.
It also has some very homophobic comments from a shocking source, where you don’t expect them, but once you know, you understand why Scott was in a bad place before.
We leave this little town, with Scott and Davis, and Carter and Tanner happily settling down to their new lives together. We also get to meet Scott’s sister. I’d like her to be happy too. She had it tough for a long time, and reconnecting with Scott gives her the courage to do something about her life. She deserves the kind of happiness her brother has found, too, please Ms Seymour!
Not quite as warm and fuzzies and too stinking cute as Let Me Some You, but it’s a very close thing! Still. . .
5 full and shiny stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Loveless (2017) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Speaking as someone who grew up in the United States, prides themselves on having a vast and diverse movie library, and only leaves the confines of the greater Seattle-area on very rare occasions .. I’m the first to admit that there are times when I don’t fully appreciate the films produced in other countries. It’s amazing how different they can be based on even differences in other cultures. Take films made in Russia for example. Perhaps it’s the cold and bleakness of the country but Russian filmmakers are amongst the best when it comes to tragedies. I imagine it’s a ‘carry over’ in part from the great literary masterpieces to come out of that country. Not to give it all away right from the beginning but if you’re like me, you need to prepare yourself for a good tragedy and that’s exactly what the film is that is up for your consideration.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
‘Loveless’ is a 2017 Russian tragedy from noted director Andrey Zvyaginstev and co-written by Zvyaginstev and Oleg Negin. As with Zvyaginstev’s 2014 tragedy ‘Leviathan’, ‘Loveless’ has quickly risen to critical acclaim and already won several accolades including the Jury Prize at 2017 Cannes Film Festival and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the 90th Academy Awards.
‘Loveless’ stars Maryana Spivak, Aleksey Rozin, and Matvey Novikov. It’s the end of the day for 12 year-old Alexey (Novikov). He says farewell to the few friends he has at school and takes the long way home through the woods following a river on the outskirts of Moscow. It’s a cold, dreary afternoon yet it’s preferable to what awaits him at home. His parents Zhenya (Spivak) and Boris (Rozin) are separated and engaged in bitter divorce proceedings but to both, the marriage was over long ago. The only difference is now are that they are living separately and they’re also trying to shrug parental responsibilities off on one another. They seem to have no issue vocalizing their mutual belief that having Alexey was a mistake. Their only real concerns seem to be getting their son out of their lives so they can move on with their new spouses and each begin a whole new family obliterating any connection they ever had or made. All this in a country that that is engaged in a war against its own people and against the Ukraine. The destruction of a family with parents at war with one another leaving the child as the innocent victim.
Zhenya returns to her apartment after spending time with her new lover to find Alexey gone and messages from his school stating he had not been there in two days. She calls Boris in an attempt to locate Alexey and after another argument over the phone finally decides to call in the police. After starting to show the smallest amount of concern for Alexey and disgust over the low priority that the police are assigning their son’s case, Zhenya and Boris call in a special volunteer unit specializing in searching for missing persons. While the parents actively participate in searching for their son, they continue to fight and engage in hostilities towards one another showing such selfishness and a blatant disregard for their son’s well being that you begin to wonder how far they can take it.
Although the film isn’t my ‘normal cup of tea’, i’m going to give it 4 out of 5 stars Zvyaginstev has crafted another tragic masterpiece putting ‘Loveless’ almost on par with ‘Leviathan’. The film highlights the lack of empathy displayed by families in modern society. Although the film has a ‘predictability’ given Zvyaginstev’s past work it is beautifully shot and well written. Watching the downward spiral of the family in this film is almost like reading a piece sheet music. It’s ominous. It’s not just name calling and insults … it’s as though it’s being disassembled piece by piece which although dark and bleak is still quite intriguing. I’d personally recommend you catch it in an independent movie theater or a small art house theater. It’s a 2 hour movie so I’d recommend catching it at a small theater.
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hustlers (2019) in Movies
Sep 19, 2019
Bland and boring DESPITE J-Lo's performance
When I first saw the trailer for the Jennifer Lopez "strippers get back at scummy Wall Street-types" film, HUSTLERS, I wasn't at all interested in seeing it But then I got wind of strong early reviews with some (very faint) Oscar talk about J-Lo's performance in this film, so I thought I'd check it out.
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I should have trusted my instincts.
What a lame disappointment this film is. It starts out flat and then flattens out even further to produce a movie that starts at one (fairly low) level and then stays there the entire time.
HUSTLERS stars Constance Wu (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) as a a young stripper who is taught the ropes of the stripping game by uber-stripper Jennifer Lopez (if you don't know who this is, then go ahead and skip to the rating of this film at the bottom of this review and move on). When J-Lo's character, Ramona, comes up with an idea to get back at the scummy Wall Street types AND make some money along the way, Wu's character, Destiny (of course) is a reluctant participant becoming - over time - the leader.
A potentially interesting, "based on True Events" story (this film is based on the real life exploits of Ramona as described in a New York Magazine story), this film just falls flat and I put the blame for this in 2 places.
Lets start with Director and Writer of the screenplay, Lorene Scafaria (SEEKING A FRIEND AT THE END OF THE WORLD). She wrote - and directed - this film like it is a modest-scaled, low-key independent film (much like the very good SEEKING A FRIEND...), but the second that this film cast Jennifer Lopez as the flashy leader Ramona, words like modest and low-key should have been thrown out the window but Scafaria chose not to do this, she downplays the best asset in her movie and plunks most of her effort on a lead who could not match Lopez star power wattage.
And that lead is Constance Wu - the other weak link in this chain. I thought she was "just fine" in CRAZY RICH ASIANS, blending into the scenery when more flamboyant personalities were on the screen (in CRA it was Michelle Yeoh's "tiger mom") and she blends into the scenery whenever J-Lo is on the screen in this film - and that just doesn't work here. She needed to step up and step out and match J-Lo blow for blow, but she backs up and backs away in these crucial moments, so when her character is on the screen alone - trying to get the audience's sympathies - I just didn't care.
What I did care about is Jennifer Lopez's performance as Ramona. She is the brightest spot in this film and brings her star power and natural charisma to the screen. The ultimate problem with this performance (and NO, it is NOT Oscar-worthy) is it feels that she is fighting the "low-key" headwinds of writer/director Scafaria the entire time.
Former Disney star Keke Palmer and current RIVERDALE star Lili Reinhart bring some fun and energy to the screen as the 3rd and 4th partners in this quartet of stripper Robin Hoods, but they are all too often sentenced to strut around in the background in tight outfits. I would have loved to see a movie with Lopez, Palmer and Reinhart that was more "out there" and less restrained.
Finally, two very good actresses - Julia Styles and Mercedes Ruehl - are in this film in "what-the-heck-are they-doing-in-this-film" roles that are underwritten and underutilized the talents of these actresses - another missed opportunity by Writer/Director Scafaria.
I've heard this film called a "female empowerment" film or "the stripper version of Goodfellas" and I couldn't disagree more. The only "empowering" part of this film is when the credits rolled and I could leave.
Letter Grade: C
4 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)