Search
FilmIntuition (33 KP) rated The Myth of Perpetual Summer in Books
Jun 19, 2018
Tennessee Williams meets Anne Tyler in award-winning novelist Susan Crandall's gorgeously penned family opus. Centered on the oldest daughter of a unique Mississippi family, The Myth of Perpetual Summer is certain to appeal to book clubs.
Moving back and forth in time between 1972 and the late 1950s and early '60s, after she learns that her younger brother has been arrested for murder in a crime that's captured national attention, Tallulah James leaves the California home she's made for herself and returns back to her southern hometown where every corner holds dozens of memories.
Wondering where it all went wrong, after she finds unexpected help for her brother's case from an old crush and family friend, Ross Saenger, Tallulah begins seeking out answers for the many mysteries of the past including the truth about her brilliant but unstable father's family tree as well as her parents' turbulent relationship.
After beginning with quite the plot hook, the pace slows down considerably with Myth requiring a good eighty or so pages to establish both its characters and momentum to the point that it's hard to put down.
Having drawn comparisons to both The Secret Life of Bees and Forrest Gump, Crandall's Myth is also reminiscent of Mary Karr's memoirs. But while Myth eventually leads a majority of its characters to well earned conclusions, it's still slightly disappointing to see how quickly the author wraps up certain plot points. In fact, it's a main source of trouble for the otherwise moving last hundred pages of the novel. And nowhere is Crandall's difficulty in judging her reader's interest better epitomized than her decision to spend far more time on a romantic backstory with Tallulah and a character who appears out of thin air (whom we could care less about) than the one that Crandall built for nearly the entire length of the novel that pays off in two pages.
Though limited by the decision to present us with only one character's point-of-view, while the romantic plotline was in great need of either more obstacles or reflection, so were other characters throughout, including the one that's sure to be a reader favorite in the form of Tallulah's protective older brother, Griff. A major protagonist in the novel's extended flashback, I couldn't help but have wished he played an even greater role in the present day '70s storyline as he did in the past.
From the blink and you'll miss it decision for a main character to run away to the solution of a murder – both of which occur in a mere page or two – while there's enough going on in the plot and character heavy book to forgive some of its lopsided storytelling, Myth should've spent less time on extraneous subplots and more ink on what really matters.
Nonetheless a lovely work of Southern Gothic fiction anchored by a strong female protagonist, Crandall's promising Myth may have its flaws. But like a good glass of lemonade on a hot summer day, you can't enjoy the sweet without the sour and thankfully there's enough of both here to keep you coming back for more.
Note – I received an ARC of the novel through Bookish First and if given the opportunity, I would've rated it 7.5 stars.
Moving back and forth in time between 1972 and the late 1950s and early '60s, after she learns that her younger brother has been arrested for murder in a crime that's captured national attention, Tallulah James leaves the California home she's made for herself and returns back to her southern hometown where every corner holds dozens of memories.
Wondering where it all went wrong, after she finds unexpected help for her brother's case from an old crush and family friend, Ross Saenger, Tallulah begins seeking out answers for the many mysteries of the past including the truth about her brilliant but unstable father's family tree as well as her parents' turbulent relationship.
After beginning with quite the plot hook, the pace slows down considerably with Myth requiring a good eighty or so pages to establish both its characters and momentum to the point that it's hard to put down.
Having drawn comparisons to both The Secret Life of Bees and Forrest Gump, Crandall's Myth is also reminiscent of Mary Karr's memoirs. But while Myth eventually leads a majority of its characters to well earned conclusions, it's still slightly disappointing to see how quickly the author wraps up certain plot points. In fact, it's a main source of trouble for the otherwise moving last hundred pages of the novel. And nowhere is Crandall's difficulty in judging her reader's interest better epitomized than her decision to spend far more time on a romantic backstory with Tallulah and a character who appears out of thin air (whom we could care less about) than the one that Crandall built for nearly the entire length of the novel that pays off in two pages.
Though limited by the decision to present us with only one character's point-of-view, while the romantic plotline was in great need of either more obstacles or reflection, so were other characters throughout, including the one that's sure to be a reader favorite in the form of Tallulah's protective older brother, Griff. A major protagonist in the novel's extended flashback, I couldn't help but have wished he played an even greater role in the present day '70s storyline as he did in the past.
From the blink and you'll miss it decision for a main character to run away to the solution of a murder – both of which occur in a mere page or two – while there's enough going on in the plot and character heavy book to forgive some of its lopsided storytelling, Myth should've spent less time on extraneous subplots and more ink on what really matters.
Nonetheless a lovely work of Southern Gothic fiction anchored by a strong female protagonist, Crandall's promising Myth may have its flaws. But like a good glass of lemonade on a hot summer day, you can't enjoy the sweet without the sour and thankfully there's enough of both here to keep you coming back for more.
Note – I received an ARC of the novel through Bookish First and if given the opportunity, I would've rated it 7.5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) in Movies
Jun 23, 2018
If you liked the first 4 films in this series, you'll like this one
Did you watch - and enjoy - the other 4 films in the JURASSIC PARK series? If so, then you'll enjoy the 5th installment, for it is more of the same - man's hubris causes giant animals to run amok and chaos, death and destruction ensues.
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The plot of this film is simple enough - the island where JURASSIC WORLD was built is now in trouble as a dormant volcano is now dormant no more. The debate rages - should Man go to the island to save the Dinosaurs trapped there - or should they let nature take it's course (again). Some nefarious fellows - who's intentions don't seem to be as pure as we are led to believe - convince our heroes from the previous film, Claire and Owen to help "save" the dinosaurs.
But, of course, the plot is just an excuse to get some pretty awesome looking CGI Dinosaurs on the screen - and to put our heroes in peril. And on that score, this film succeeds wonderfully well.
I remember back in 1993 how awed I was at the spectacle on the screen. The CGI Dinosaurs were LIFE-LIKE! I was blown away by it. Today, I have come to expect the CGI will be top-notch - and I was not disappointed, to the point where I forgot that I was watching CGI.
As for the action and acting, Director J.A. Bayona (A MONSTER CALLS) keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, not letting us catch our breath - or more importantly - stop to think of the plausibility or logic of decisions being made. His mantra seems to be "move our heroes from peril to peril" - and he does that well.
Chris Pratt is back as Owen, the "Raptor handler" and his charm and charisma on screen is in full display and really carries the weight of this film. He is able to charm his way into the audiences heart, so you end up rooting for him fully from start to finish. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of "Opie Cunningham" Ron Howard) comes into her own as Claire, the Dinosaur "Scientist" and quasi-love interest for Owen. She is able to avoid (mostly) the cliches of "damsel in distress" or "kick-ass chick" and gives us a rounded character that I rooted for just as strongly as Pratt's character.
The rest of the cast - save two - are pretty much throw away that are set up to be Dinosaur food. The two that stood out are the great James Cromwell as an aging Billionaire who has a connection to the originator of Jurassic Park, John Hammond. Cromwell is his usual, solid self. And...the funniest character in the film...computer expert Franklin Webb (played by Justice Smith) who, of course, is asked to do more than just "computer stuff" that he is ill-equipped to handle.
Going into this film, you know what you are going to get - and this film delivers that entertainingly enough. As I stated at the top, if you like the first 4 films of this series, you'll like this one.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jan 18, 2019 (Updated Jan 18, 2019)
A strong start to this concluding chapter but ultimately Glass fails to deliver
Kevin Wendell Crumb, or more specifically the Horde within him, are up to their old tricks again - kidnapping and chaining up four cheerleaders in a disused warehouse, subjecting them to the impressive and unsettling array of characters so brilliantly introduced to us in Split. Meanwhile, David Dunn runs a security company with his son, venturing out on walks to try and get a sense of any bad guys out on the streets, continuing the work he began in Unbreakable. Delivering justice in his hooded poncho, he's earned himself many names but social media seem to have settled on 'The Overseer'. He's keen to find and save the cheerleaders and following a brush with their captor on a nearby street, manages to discover their location with the help of his son, who provides help and direction over an earpiece. He sets them free, just as The Beast returns. A fight breaks out and Glass gets off to an impressive start, finally bringing together two distinct parts of a movie universe that's been very slowly built over the last 19 years.
But their fight is cut short by Dr Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist specialising in people who believe they are superheroes. She's brought with her a team of heavily armed soldiers who capture both men and take them to the hospital where Dr Staple works, Raven Hill Memorial. Mr Glass is already being held in the hospital, slumped in a wheelchair - motionless and with just the occasional facial tic to show that he's still alive. Is he faking it? Spoiler alert: yes he is, but then I'm sure you knew that anyway!
With Kevin and David both trapped in specially designed cells, preventing any outbursts of strength or transformations into violent personalities, the movie immediately slows in pace while Dr Ellie sets about evaluating them, trying to prove that they're delusional in their beliefs regarding their abilities. It's another chance for James McAvoy to shine, showcasing 20 of the 24 personalities within him, while David Dunn takes a bit of a backseat, brooding in his cell for the most part. Meanwhile, Mr Glass is quietly masterminding something bigger than anyone can imagine. Pretty much the remainder of the movie is set within the confines of the hospital - a tricky juggling act combining the slow burn mystery of Unbreakable with the thrilling horror of Split, which for the most part I found to be enjoyable, entertaining and at times thrilling. The problems began for me when Mr Glass begins executing his big plan, and all three break free from their cells. This latter part of the movie is full of tension and repeatedly builds towards something that it never manages to fully deliver on, ultimately resulting in disappointment. It kind of just fizzles out, with a few twists and turns along the way that are nowhere near as impressive or inventive as previous M Night Shyamalan offerings. And while I fully appreciate and understand what he was aiming for with regards to the ending, it just didn't quite work for me at all. A bit of an anticlimax to what was a very strong and promising start to the concluding chapter of the trilogy.
But their fight is cut short by Dr Ellie Staple, a psychiatrist specialising in people who believe they are superheroes. She's brought with her a team of heavily armed soldiers who capture both men and take them to the hospital where Dr Staple works, Raven Hill Memorial. Mr Glass is already being held in the hospital, slumped in a wheelchair - motionless and with just the occasional facial tic to show that he's still alive. Is he faking it? Spoiler alert: yes he is, but then I'm sure you knew that anyway!
With Kevin and David both trapped in specially designed cells, preventing any outbursts of strength or transformations into violent personalities, the movie immediately slows in pace while Dr Ellie sets about evaluating them, trying to prove that they're delusional in their beliefs regarding their abilities. It's another chance for James McAvoy to shine, showcasing 20 of the 24 personalities within him, while David Dunn takes a bit of a backseat, brooding in his cell for the most part. Meanwhile, Mr Glass is quietly masterminding something bigger than anyone can imagine. Pretty much the remainder of the movie is set within the confines of the hospital - a tricky juggling act combining the slow burn mystery of Unbreakable with the thrilling horror of Split, which for the most part I found to be enjoyable, entertaining and at times thrilling. The problems began for me when Mr Glass begins executing his big plan, and all three break free from their cells. This latter part of the movie is full of tension and repeatedly builds towards something that it never manages to fully deliver on, ultimately resulting in disappointment. It kind of just fizzles out, with a few twists and turns along the way that are nowhere near as impressive or inventive as previous M Night Shyamalan offerings. And while I fully appreciate and understand what he was aiming for with regards to the ending, it just didn't quite work for me at all. A bit of an anticlimax to what was a very strong and promising start to the concluding chapter of the trilogy.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Interview (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Thanks to the negative attention that “The Interview” received, it will be viewed by many more people than it would have without the controversy. The film, which was almost never released due to a cyberattack on Sony, is now the most widely accessible of this season.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in Movies
Jun 26, 2019
Hulk Continues to Smash...and I'm Here For All of it
When an artificial intelligence outthinks its creator and forms itself into dozens of destructive robots, Earth's mightiest heroes come together once again to put a stop to the threat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
As most MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) films tend to do, Avengers: Age of Ultron gets off to a really quick start wasting no time with action. Everyone gets a piece in the first ten minutes and they're working even better together than they did in the first film. While Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) flex their muscle and rip tanks in half, Hawkeye Jeremy Renner) pierces through dudes like the modern-day Legolas.
Characters: 10
A part of what works so well for these characters is how grossly different their backstories and personalities are. Hawkeye is a family man that uses humor to mask his annoyance in certain situations. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is constantly pushing the boundary envelope and acts superior to the ideas and thoughts of the rest of the group. Normally you hate a guy like this but he wears the hat so well. Throw in Vision, a benevolent AI with a sense of purpose, and the rest of the crew and you have a pretty solid character-base.
AI of the hour Ultron (James Spader) is a villain with a surprising amount of depth. He fights for his own cause which, in his mind, is the only necessary option for balance and preservation. His smooth, even-keeled voice can be chilling at times making for some pretty solid scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
There is enough action in the film for two films. The plot steamrolls into new scenes of combat, one after the next. Dull moments are nonexistent. There is something about having all of these characters on the screen at the same time that keeps the film exciting and fresh. Teamups are especially cool, watching pairs like Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor perform unique combo moves. You want eye candy? The film delivers.
Genre: 8
Not the best superhero film I've seen, although I believe that says more about the emergence of the genre than the film itself. This century has ushered in some phenomenal superhero movies that do the genre proud, including ones that set themselves apart by having enriched characters and deeper meaning. Age of Ultron is solid, but falls just slightly out of the Cream of the Crop territory.
Memorability: 9
The action sequences alone played throughout my mind well after having watched the film. Among other things, Age of Ultron gives you a falling city along with a classic matchup between Hulk and Stark in the Hulkbuster suit. Perhaps the most memorable part came at the very end when Ultron and Vision are having a conversation about the fate of humanity. Part foreshadowing, part introspection, it was a very fitting way to bring the curtain down on the action.
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Resolution: 8
Overall: 94
No, it's not the best MCU film made to date, but it's still a high-quality film with a solid story and memorable sequences that keep you glued to your seat. Thankful for the rewatch as I enjoyed it even more the second time around.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avatar: The Way of Water (2021) in Movies
Jan 2, 2023
Strong Visuals - Weak Everything Else
See AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER on the biggest 3D Screen, with the best Sound System possible. It is a technical marvel…way ahead of anything that has, thus far, been seen on a movie screen.
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It’s too bad the story (and characters) lag far behind.
Taking the audience back to the world of Pandora, AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER treads familiar territory as Director James Cameron returns us to this idyllic planet, with the natives living peacefully, in concert with the land, until the soldiers from Earth show up (again) to strip the planet of it’s native contents (again).
Cameron (TITANTIC) expands this 3D World, bringing the audience from the trees to the water - and what an expansion this is! It is a BEAUTIFUL film to watch and Cameron (as one would expect) expertly pushes the technological edges of the industry, bringing us stunning visuals underwater. It is this part of the more than 3 hour film that is worth the price of admission alone. It is a feast for the eyes.
But what Cameron (and his FOUR writers of the script - never a good sign) fail to do is to add interesting characters and stories to these amazing visuals. It is a pretty straight forward telling of Good (the native peoples) vs. Evil (the invading soldiers from Earth). There is no nuance or subtly whatsoever throughout this film.
Back from the first film are Sam Worthington (just as wooden and uninteresting), Zoe Saldana (just as underused) and Stephen Lang (just as one-note as the villain). Obviously, it is just their voices used - for they are all rendered as Pandorans via motion-capture - but they don’t have much to do except be one with the nature (the good guys) or destroy nature (the soldiers).
Joining the cast - and just as underused - are Cliff Curtis, CCH Pounder and, especially, Kate Winslet. Cameron brings in some really fine performers who have to spout wooden dialogue that would make George Lucas blush - all the while performing in motion capture suits. This movie could have been so much better had Cameron given these actors something better and more interesting to do.
The only exception to this is the young actress (so I thought) that portrayed Kiri - who is the daughter of the Sigourney Weaver character from the first film. This Pandoran was born under mysterious circumstances (Virgin birth? Do we have a Messiah?) and is more in tune with the nature of the world they live in. This young actress had the most interesting things to do and she absolutely nailed it, so I should not have been surprised to find out that this “young actress” was none other than - Sigourney Weaver.
Well done, Cameron and Weaver. You got me on this one.
This film (the second in what will be a trilogy - or maybe more) has a run time of over 3 hours - so be warned - but Cameron keeps things moving along at a sprightly pace, never lingering over the clunky dialogue, but stopping to watch the beautiful visuals along the way.
AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER is worth watching for the water and the stunning visuals…but not for much else.
Letter Grade: B+ (10 for the visuals, 5 for the story)
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Audio Books by Audiobooks
Book and Entertainment
App
Wish you could read more but don’t have the time? You’ll love audiobooks! Audiobooks.com is the...
Paperless: Lists + Checklists
Productivity and Lifestyle
App
Get the app that Macworld says "deserves a spot on your iPhone"! MAKE LISTS OF ANYTHING AND...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A film that never needed to exist
Marc Webb’s first attempt at being behind the lens of a Marvel film was 2012’s The Amazing Spider-Man. Just five years after Sam Raimi concluded his trilogy with Tobey Maguire in the tight fitting suit, Andrew Garfield donned the iconic costume in a film that was good if a little unnecessary. Here, Webb returns just two years later with The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but can it prove its worth?
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Thankfully yes. Amazing Spider-Man 2 is not only the best Spider-Man film to date, but one of Marvel’s greatest offerings despite some flaws in its production.
Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone return as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey respectively as they battle a whole host of new foes in a movie that is loud, frequently violent and massively long.
Peter is still trying to piece together the fate of his parents as Aunt May, played excellently by Sally Field, continues to keep the truth from him. However, there’s no time for anguish as the villains come thick-and-fast.
Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti and a superb Dane DeHaan are all present to give Spider-Man, and his alter ego, a good kicking. A brilliantly unrestrained Foxx plays Max Dillon who inexplicably becomes one of the title characters best on-screen foes, Electro.
Much of the criticism of Raimi’s 2007 blockbuster Spider-Man 3 was given to the inclusion of too many plots, sub-plots and villains. Therefore many fans and critics thought the case would be similar here, especially considering Electro, Green Goblin and Rhino were all billed to appear.
The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2-New-Poster-spider-man-35222096-1024-1421
Mercifully, Webb restrains himself and leaves much of the film’s running time to Electro while Rhino (Giamatti) and Green Goblin (DeHaan) are merely given glorified cameos; setting the characters up for a larger part in the inevitable Amazing Spider-Man 3 and 4.
The special effects are on a whole new level to what we have seen previously. Apart from a few lapses towards the climatic finale, where things can begin to look like a video game, the film looks absolutely fantastic. The soaring shots of Spider-Man swinging his way across New York landmarks are exceptional and Webb’s use of slow-motion frames bring home the spider like senses Parker has been gifted with.
Acting performances are also sublime. Parker is a much better Spider-Man than Maguire was in the previous films. His geeky, timid persona is brilliantly juxtaposed with the superhero’s more arrogant attitude. Yet he never becomes irritating, a la Spider-Man 3. Emma Stone’s portrayal of love interest Gwen Stacey is wonderful and she does a cracking job of making the pair have real chemistry despite how difficult it is for this to create – though it must always help when you are partnered in real life.
The real joy here though is Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn/Green Goblin. His performance is the complete opposite of James Franco’s take, he makes Harry a more vulnerable young man, clearly damaged by previous events in his life, as well as the ones which will no doubt occur in the future.
Unfortunately, the film’s running time is a real headache. At 142 minutes, you begin to check your watch as there are numerous points where you believe it could end – though it never does. Thankfully, this is a minor issue in a film which rarely lets up in its riveting pace.
Overall, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a film which never really needed to exist, certainly not for another ten years or so. It is clear in some respects that its production has been rushed to capitalise on the ever-popular Marvel series, but in others it makes perfect sense to release it when the story is still fresh in people’s minds.
Despite some clunky special effects in the finale and its gargantuan length, Amazing Spider-Man 2 boasts excellent performances and a humorous and exciting story, and as such is one of Marvel’s best offerings to date, only beaten by Avengers Assemble. The only question is, was it all necessary?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/04/19/the-amazing-spider-man-2-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 8, 2020
A courtesy tap
If you were ever going to deliberately hack-off anyone in real life, Russell Crowe would probably be low on the list. A genuine bear of a man! He looks like he could kill you with a single swipe of his clawed furry hand!
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
In the movie it was a certain Rachel (Caren Pistorius) who randomly crosses the ursine-one's path. She encounters his unnamed character ("Man") at traffic light. Rachel is having a bad day herself. But the unstable and unhinged man makes it his mission to show her "what a bad day really feels like".
Having had over 40 years of driving experienced, I've experienced two incidents of genuine road rage against me. One of these was in similar circumstances to Rachel's experience. By me giving slightly more than a 'courtesy tap' on the horn to a driver who cut me up. Both though were 'white-knuckles-on-the-wheel' scary experiences. So although, as a viewer, I felt a degree of irritation at Rachel's stubborn actions in the movie, it didn't seem completely 'out there'. You only need the other guy to be a psycho, and....
What follows is a thriller having a vein of dark comedy running through it. Yes, it's relatively predictable and above-average on the gore rating but nonetheless enjoyable.
The movie, of course, blends some staples of the thriller genre. Firstly there is that favorite trope of Spielberg of a malevolent force, persistently lurking in the shadows to wreak havoc at any time. (Think of those classics "Duel" and "Jaws". Blended with that is a recurring plot-point of Hitchcock movies: the every-man (in this case every-woman), in the mode of James Stewart or Cary Grant, uprooted from their hum-drum normal lives to suddenly face peril they are unequipped to deal with.
Holding that role here extremely well is Caren Pistorius as the luckless Rachel. She's only had bit parts in previous movies I've seen - "Denial", "Mortal Engines" and "The Light Between Oceans". But here she gets a starring role, up front and central, and I thought she pulled it off really well. She also gets to deliver the best line in the film in the violent and bloody denouement! A leading actress I would like to see more of for sure.
The star-power evident here though is Crowe. His portrayal as the steely-eyed unhinged psychopath is beautifully and believably done. A scene in a diner is especially chilling, featuring Jimmi Simpson as the unfortunate Andy, Rachel's divorce lawyer. (If, like me, you were desperately trying to place the actor, Simpson played the young 'good-guy' tourist in the brilliant first season of "Westworld".)
Unhinged is nicely penned and, in the main, nicely directed. With the pen is Carl Ellsworth, who's sparse career has delivered chillers such as "Disturbia" and "The Last House on the Left". And although we've been in this sort of stalker territory numerous times before, the script of "Unhinged" delivers some nice twists. For example, the dangers inherent in "Find My Friends" style tracking apps. One negative though for me is the rising body-count of "innocents". It gave me the slightly icky feeling I felt when the jumbo jet is crashed in "Die Hard 2".
Keeping up the pace is German director Derrick Borte, someone new to me. The car chases incorporated into the action are tense (reminiscent sometimes of "Baby Driver") and well-shot (by Irish cinematographer Brendan Galvin). There are the occasional "oh, really!!" moments, that a more experienced director might have chosen to excise. But on the whole, this is a taut little thriller, wisely sticking to a 90 minute running time, and never losing my interest.
Although formulaic, and at times extremely violent for a '15' certificate, "Unhinged" made a welcome and entertaining return for me to the multiplex after the Covid break.
(For the full graphical review, please check it out here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/08/one-manns-movies-film-review-unhinged-2020/).
