Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated True Romance (1993) in Movies
Mar 25, 2018
Original Romantic Action Film
An unlikely pair fall in love and find themselves on the run with a luggage full of cocaine.
Acting: 10
True Romance is littered with star power and each of them deliver. With a who's who of Hollywood actors and actresses it's no surprise that even the supporting roles left you with something to remember. The late James Gandolfini was my personal favorite playing the role of Virgil. He's a brooding gangster who looks like he's about to snap in every single scene that he's in. You hate him, yet you appreciate his ruthlessness at the same time.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a very intriguing start in its first ten minutes. Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) and Alabama Whitman (Patricia Arquette) get off to a fast start that ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the film. You're given a small taste of what's to come which makes you want more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
My wife and I went back and forth on this. She thought the ending was improbable. I thought that, considering the rest of the movie as a whole, the ending was exactly what it needed to be. Their entire relationship was improbable so the insanity of how the movie concludes was the improbable cherry on top. Well done.
Overall: 96
True Romance is one of those films you don't expect to like, then you end up loving it. The awesome gun battle at the end is not only absolute bedlam, but it one of those scenes you remember for a long time. You won't forget it, nor will you forget Christopher Walken's intense interrogation scene. I can see now why this film made an all-time Top 100 list.
Acting: 10
True Romance is littered with star power and each of them deliver. With a who's who of Hollywood actors and actresses it's no surprise that even the supporting roles left you with something to remember. The late James Gandolfini was my personal favorite playing the role of Virgil. He's a brooding gangster who looks like he's about to snap in every single scene that he's in. You hate him, yet you appreciate his ruthlessness at the same time.
Beginning: 10
The film gets off to a very intriguing start in its first ten minutes. Clarence Worley (Christian Slater) and Alabama Whitman (Patricia Arquette) get off to a fast start that ultimately sets the tone for the rest of the film. You're given a small taste of what's to come which makes you want more.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Genre: 10
Memorability: 9
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
My wife and I went back and forth on this. She thought the ending was improbable. I thought that, considering the rest of the movie as a whole, the ending was exactly what it needed to be. Their entire relationship was improbable so the insanity of how the movie concludes was the improbable cherry on top. Well done.
Overall: 96
True Romance is one of those films you don't expect to like, then you end up loving it. The awesome gun battle at the end is not only absolute bedlam, but it one of those scenes you remember for a long time. You won't forget it, nor will you forget Christopher Walken's intense interrogation scene. I can see now why this film made an all-time Top 100 list.
Merissa (11787 KP) rated Pure Healing (Pure Ones #1) in Books
Mar 1, 2018
Pure Healing (Pure Ones #1) by Aja James
Pure Healing is the first book in the Pure Ones series. In a nutshell, it is about a vampire like species who hold honour in high esteem. They are unable to have sex with each other unless it is their true mate, but are quite conniving in finding ways around that little rule! ;) Valerius and Rain met ten years ago, but made sure their paths crossed as little as possible. Now, however, it is unavoidable.
This story will drag you in and not let go. Told in the first person for the first and last chapters, and then third person multiple point of view throughout the rest of the story, it will definitely keep you on your toes. You will also 'see' an amazing part of the world in this story, one that is too often neglected. The originality of this story, coupled with the amazing world-building, fantastic story-line, and brilliant characters, demand that this book be given the full five stars.
The writing itself is smooth, with no editing or grammatical errors to disrupt the reading flow. The pace was smooth, and the story action-packed. It is steamy in places, but only where it should be. Lots of other characters NEED to have their story told, so I can't wait for those. And I sincerely hope for a HEA for the whole of the Pure Ones. They have suffered losses in this book, and I don't like that! And yes, I know they're not real, but read the book and you'll understand where I'm coming from!
As a final comment, I will just say I'm definitely not Team Ere, but Team Dalair all the way!
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
This story will drag you in and not let go. Told in the first person for the first and last chapters, and then third person multiple point of view throughout the rest of the story, it will definitely keep you on your toes. You will also 'see' an amazing part of the world in this story, one that is too often neglected. The originality of this story, coupled with the amazing world-building, fantastic story-line, and brilliant characters, demand that this book be given the full five stars.
The writing itself is smooth, with no editing or grammatical errors to disrupt the reading flow. The pace was smooth, and the story action-packed. It is steamy in places, but only where it should be. Lots of other characters NEED to have their story told, so I can't wait for those. And I sincerely hope for a HEA for the whole of the Pure Ones. They have suffered losses in this book, and I don't like that! And yes, I know they're not real, but read the book and you'll understand where I'm coming from!
As a final comment, I will just say I'm definitely not Team Ere, but Team Dalair all the way!
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Glengarry Glen Ross (1992) in Movies
Feb 21, 2019
Solid Gold Movie
Chaos ensues when a bunch or salesman at a real estate agency are forced into a high-stakes game where they either become top closers or get fired.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
You think the beginning is going to be weak…until Blake (Alec Baldwin) walks in. He is filled with such passion and rage, but the one thing he is lacking is fucks. Blake has zero fucks to give about anyone’s feelings or their jobs. “Fuck you, that’s my name!” he screams at someone thinking they will get the upperhand on him. Classic.
Characters: 10
Aside from Blake, the rest of the characters add depth to the movie. With their different personalities, each character has a distinctly different approach to the way that they sell and go about winning. Their choices and reactions hold sway over which direction the movie turns and what the audience thinks is going to happen next. As things unfold and they end up being questioned by the Detective (Jude Ciccolella), it’s interesting to watch them have different responses to the pressure.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I love the cinematic work here. The entire film has a dreary feel, almost like there’s a fog being cast over the characters and their dilemma. The light comes in small glimpses and you mostly see rain throughout. It has a suffocating feel, adding even more certainty that the characters are resigned to their own fate.
Conflict: 10
Look, I’m in sales and few things institute conflict like sales situations. Tell a bunch of guys that they either hit their numbers or they’re fired and there’s bound to be problems. As the film drags on, the desperation becomes even heavier. You feel for these guys, but not so much so that you don’t get the enjoyment of watching them crumble in high pressure situations. As douchey as it sounds, it’s actually kind of fun.
Genre: 7
Memorability: 7
Pace: 10
Once Blake enters the scene, the movie maintains its pace from start to finish. Fueled by conflict and desperation, the characters ultimately create a mystery that you want to get to the bottom of before the movie reaches its end. It’s refreshing when you watch a movie that doesn’t have any dead spots and director James Foley succeeded in making that a reality.
Plot: 10
What happens when you put a bunch of different personalities in a room and tell them they have a certain amount of time to complete a goal or else? The story is ultimately moved by how people respond to pressure situations. I can imagine when this was written, the direction may have changed directions a couple of times due to the personalities of the characters. Memorable characters can alter the direction of a plot for the sake of staying true to the characters.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 87
I hadn’t even heard of this movie until a couple of years ago. It’s funny, this movie was recommended to me by a Sales Manager who thought, “This is how the sales team should go after it!” After watching it, I thought, “This isn’t how selling should be at all!” Glengarry Glen Ross succeeds because it appeals to people for different reasons. Some see it as a cautionary tale while others view it as inspiration. I am in the camp of the former. I’m also in the popular majority that think the movie is awesome.
Sean Farrell (9 KP) rated Zoo in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Working in a library it's hard not to notice how popular (and prolific) James Patterson is. While I was skeptical of just how good anything could be when it's written by someone who spits out books at a dizzying pace, and who is probably handing much of the actual writing off to one of the other authors he seems to employ, I still figured at some point I should read something of his just to see what I thought. Being a completely standalone story, and of somewhat more interest to me than his typical "murder-of-the-month" fare, "Zoo" seemed like a good way to dip my toes in the water. It tells the story of the world's population falling victim to an uprising of animal violence and the scientist who is trying to warn everybody of the coming problem and its cause. It's a somewhat simple story, but it's told briskly and has a number of memorably suspenseful scenes. The science behind everything sounds relatively plausible, whether or not it really is I couldn't tell you, though I have my doubts. Either way, it was good enough to sell the rather dire and dramatic circumstances that unfold over the course of the novel. The characters are likable enough, but don't really feel all that fleshed out. On some other negative notes; the dialogue is sometimes quite bad and there are too many times where people make horrifically stupid decisions for reasons that I found it hard to believe would have been enough to get them to make them. That aside, it was fast paced and suspenseful enough to keep me reading. The short chapters make it feel like it's propelling along at a higher speed, even if it does seem like some sequences were ended too abruptly, negating any chance of building up real suspense. The end in particular, while logical to the story, felt pretty abrupt and left me feeling just a little unsatisfied. I enjoyed reading Mr. Patterson more than I expected I might, but I don't know that I'll be coming back for more any time soon.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Casino Royale (1967) in Movies
Jul 24, 2020
It Gets Real Bad
Here’s what Rotten Tomatoes has to say because I couldn’t begin to tell you what this shit-show is about: “This James Bond spoof features the hero coming out of retirement to attempt to fix some problems for SMERSH, while a multitude of other subplots unwind about the central figure.” Yeah, even RT was having trouble trying to figure out what the hell was going on with the 1967 Casino Royale. How bad is it? Well, let’s just say I just finished reading a list of the Top 100 Worst Movies of All Time and I was very surprised to not see this movie on there.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Acting: 10
The movie was bad, but I honestly can’t say that the acting was. These professionals had a job to do and they did it…more or less. While there’s no one performance that really stood out for me, I can definitely remember thinking that no one shit the bed at least.
Beginning: 6
This movie is weird through and through and the beginning is no exception. I will say there was some mild interest after the first ten minutes. I knew it was going to be different than the previous Bond movies, but I wasn’t sure if that was a good thing or not.
Characters: 8
In addition to solid acting, the characters weren’t all that bad either. Sure James Bond was way more lame than the usual guy we had come to know and love over the previous few movies. But throw in characters like the aloof Evelyn Tremble (Peter Sellers) and you’ve got a fun cast of characters that at least try to keep things interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Casino Royale is shot like they were given the lowest budget imaginable. Everything feels extremely cheap and done with little to no effort. It is a far cry from the previous Bond movies that give you groundbreaking shots and decent special effects. This movie’s visuals are mediocre at best.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 3
It’s never a good sign when I have to stop watching a movie at night and continue on in the morning. When it’s good enough, I will stay up no matter how tired I am. This movie was bad enough to put me right to sleep. I scored it a 3 because it reached a point where my interest was piqued in just how bad things were going to get.
Memorability: 8
It’s bad sure…but boy is it unforgettable bad. With all the craziness that ensued, they made sure you would remember it a long time after watching it. And you know what? There’s a fun respectability that comes with that.
Pace: 1
Plot: 2
Resolution: 6
The best part about the end? It was the end.
Overall: 55
I wanted to watch all the Bond movies, including the stinkers. Casino Royale is easily one of the stinkers. But, with movies as it is with everything, you can’t know where you’re going unless you see where you’ve been.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Cinderella Man (2005) in Movies
Jan 15, 2018
Classic
Cinderella Man is one of those films where I ask myself, "Why in the world has it taken me thirteen years to watch this?" It could be the fact that I've never had a strong love for films based on true stories or that I'm all binged out on boxing movies. Whatever the case may be, I'm glad Movies 365 has brought this film into my life and now into my heart.
There's so much to like about the movie, I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe Paul Giamati giving the performance of his life as trainer Joe Gould? Talk about playing a fabulous role. He's brash and straightforward, yet full of heart. He's not a fighter, but will go toe-to-toe with anyone to protect the people he cares about. Outshining him, however, is a stellar lead performance by legend Russell Crowe playing man of the hour James Braddock. Crowe makes you feel this guy, makes you love him. In one of the early scenes where Braddock gives his entire breakfast to his starving daughter before leaving for a strenuous day of work, you quickly realize that this is a guy you want to get behind and root for.
In the same vein, kudos to Ron Howard for using the source material to flesh out the stakes. The story could have just as easily been about a man trying to get back into boxing, but he made it about a man trying to feed his family and survive. It's painful to watch at times, but necessary. If you're not the least bit inspired after viewing this film, I don't know what will do it for you.
Howard also succeeds with excellent pace management. Seamless cuts between fights keep the action fresh and the viewer engaged. You don't get a whole lot of time to catch your breath. The cinematics are shot in a way that's gritty and real, beyond fitting for the Great Depression era when the film takes place.
Other than me almost going hoarse from screaming at the screen so much, I can't find many flaws with the film (hiccups, nothing major). I challenge you not to love this film about an aging boxer that just wants to keep his family alive. I give Cinderella Man a 95.
There's so much to like about the movie, I'm not even sure where to start. Maybe Paul Giamati giving the performance of his life as trainer Joe Gould? Talk about playing a fabulous role. He's brash and straightforward, yet full of heart. He's not a fighter, but will go toe-to-toe with anyone to protect the people he cares about. Outshining him, however, is a stellar lead performance by legend Russell Crowe playing man of the hour James Braddock. Crowe makes you feel this guy, makes you love him. In one of the early scenes where Braddock gives his entire breakfast to his starving daughter before leaving for a strenuous day of work, you quickly realize that this is a guy you want to get behind and root for.
In the same vein, kudos to Ron Howard for using the source material to flesh out the stakes. The story could have just as easily been about a man trying to get back into boxing, but he made it about a man trying to feed his family and survive. It's painful to watch at times, but necessary. If you're not the least bit inspired after viewing this film, I don't know what will do it for you.
Howard also succeeds with excellent pace management. Seamless cuts between fights keep the action fresh and the viewer engaged. You don't get a whole lot of time to catch your breath. The cinematics are shot in a way that's gritty and real, beyond fitting for the Great Depression era when the film takes place.
Other than me almost going hoarse from screaming at the screen so much, I can't find many flaws with the film (hiccups, nothing major). I challenge you not to love this film about an aging boxer that just wants to keep his family alive. I give Cinderella Man a 95.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 5, 2018
Very Good Time
It's 2045 and most of the world's population has turned to the virtual world called OASIS which has become a second home for many. When the world's creator James Halladay (Mark Rylance) passes away, he leaves behind an easter egg inside the virtual world and whoever finds that egg will inherit both his fortune and the OASIS. Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) hopes to find that egg before Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn) and his greedy corporation IOI can get their hands on it and forever ruin the OASIS.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Acting: 8
Beginning: 10
Characters: 2
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 9
A death-defying race chocked full of easter eggs (like Ryu from Street Fighter and the bike from Akira) where the participants have to deal with a shifting path, bulldozers, the T-Rex from Jurassic Park and a very angry King Kong. Yeah, that's just the first ten minutes.
In Ready Player One, it's not just about the action but about everyone and everything involved in said action. I can't go into too much detail without ruining the surprises, but I will say there is plenty of eye-candy and intense action sequences that will keep you fully engaged in the film. Just when you think you've seen it all, they surprise you with something new.
Genre: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
The epitome of a popcorn movie. Just relax. Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Don't expect substance. Just thrills on top of consistent thrills. The film arrives from one scene to the next at a speed I felt was just right.
Plot: 7
Resolution: 10
Solid ending that made me appreciate the otherwise flat characters more. There's a good message here revolving around the importance of taking full advantage of life around you. You just might call me a sap when you see it for yourself but, for this film...it fits.
Overall: 83
Was Ready Player One as good as the novel it was made after? No. Not even close. If you can keep that in mind from the jump like I was able to do, the film should still make for a very enjoyable experience. You can tell that a lot of time and love was poured into the film. See it.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Rear Window (1954) in Movies
Dec 24, 2018
Great Mystery
A photojournalist is wheelchair-ridden, watching people in his apartment complex from his window for hours. He’s thrown for a loop when he witnesses what he thinks is a murder. He wants to get to the bottom of it or die trying.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
I’ll start with Stella (Thelma Ritter) who is easily my favorite character in the entire movie. She is an in-home nurse who is taking care of main character L.B. Jeffries (James Stewart). Out of all the characters in the story, she has the brightest sense of humor. I also loved that she takes zero guff from L.B., sometimes even making it seem like he works for her. She was stern and went beyond the parameters of her job doing everything from offering love advice to helping L.B. dive into the murder.
Of course I appreciated a number of the other characters as well, including the creepy Lars Thorwald (Raymond Burr). He is the object of L.B.’s accusation. Lars does a great job of making you think L.B. could be right. At other times, Lars seems like just a normal guy going about his daily routine. He takes strange to new heights. Each of the characters, the important ones anyway, help to frame the story and keep you intrigued.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 8
Genre: 5
Memorability: 10
Pace: 9
Plot: 10
Rear Window succeeds with a script that’s extremely crisp and engaging. Mystery and tension abound as you try and figure out what’s going to happen next. The story is simple, yet is peeled back in layers. Very well done.
Resolution: 10
I won’t dive in too much here but I will say that the ending is perfect to the point that it answers all the right questions. It doesn’t overdo things and try and unnecessarily put a bow on things. We find out what we need to know and that’s that.
Overall: 92
Alfred Hitchcock puts together stories like a boxer puts together a fight. He hits you with little jabs that wake you up. Eventually he goes in for the kill with harder punches that you’re not ready for. He is definitely one of the greats and Rear Window is yet another one of his classics to show for it.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Sep 18, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Tenet has a good premise, a CIA agent is recruited to help find the source of a number of objects that have been 'Inverted', meaning that they run in the opposite direction of time. Unfortunately the film feels like Christopher Nolan (the writer) took James Bond, Men in Black (without the aliens) and the Red Dwarf Episode Backwards (without the comedy), put them all in a bag, gave it a shake and tipped the contents out.
That's not to say that Tenet is a bad film it's just, well that's the thing, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. There are some films where some scenes feel off until something is revealed later on (I found this with the meat locker scene at the beginning of Bloodshot) and Tenet is one of these, which is the point, the film is about time travel/manipulation and so you are only given some of the information first time around, but I think Tenet gets too jumpy.
Tenet starts with a good old action scene then slows right down as the Protagonist (he has no name) tries to find out information, this part drags a little. The it begins to get Timey Wimey. There is a fight scene where the choreography seems a bit off and then the story begins to pick up pace.
There are action scenes that are, at least in part, backwards and, to be honest I think Red Dwarf pulled it off better. The rules of the inversion don't always seem to make sense but, to it's credit, when trying to explain some of the science they do say that they don't know and that things happen.
You have to keep your eyes open, much like a certain Red Dwarf episode consequence sometimes precedes action so, sometimes there is a clue to what is going to happen. But there are also time loops and some loops have other loops and things happen that you have to wait for a character to explain.
There are also things that happen in the first scene that are only hinted at so there is a set up for some sequels.
So, over all, we have Bond'esq ode to a Red Dwarf episode that is mostly entertaining, predictable in places and slow in others. Is it worth a watch? Yes but don't expect a big budget time travel sci-Fi extravaganza.
That's not to say that Tenet is a bad film it's just, well that's the thing, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is. There are some films where some scenes feel off until something is revealed later on (I found this with the meat locker scene at the beginning of Bloodshot) and Tenet is one of these, which is the point, the film is about time travel/manipulation and so you are only given some of the information first time around, but I think Tenet gets too jumpy.
Tenet starts with a good old action scene then slows right down as the Protagonist (he has no name) tries to find out information, this part drags a little. The it begins to get Timey Wimey. There is a fight scene where the choreography seems a bit off and then the story begins to pick up pace.
There are action scenes that are, at least in part, backwards and, to be honest I think Red Dwarf pulled it off better. The rules of the inversion don't always seem to make sense but, to it's credit, when trying to explain some of the science they do say that they don't know and that things happen.
You have to keep your eyes open, much like a certain Red Dwarf episode consequence sometimes precedes action so, sometimes there is a clue to what is going to happen. But there are also time loops and some loops have other loops and things happen that you have to wait for a character to explain.
There are also things that happen in the first scene that are only hinted at so there is a set up for some sequels.
So, over all, we have Bond'esq ode to a Red Dwarf episode that is mostly entertaining, predictable in places and slow in others. Is it worth a watch? Yes but don't expect a big budget time travel sci-Fi extravaganza.
Katie (868 KP) May 30, 2018
Phillip McSween (751 KP) May 30, 2018