Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Apr 20, 2018
Pretty much what you'd expect - and it's fun
There are times when you go to a movie, you are going there to immerse yourself in a world that draws out strong emotions with stellar acting, writing and directing and Cinematography that takes your breath away.
And there are other times where all you want is to watch Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and a giant Gorilla fight a giant Wolf and a giant Alligator in downtown Chicago.
Guess which one RAMPAGE is?
Based on a video-game of the same name, RAMPAGE tells the tale of a primatologist who's "friend" (a gorilla) is infected with an experimental - and illegal - pathogen that turns him (and 2 other animals) into giant killing machines. It will take all the skills of this primatologist (did I mention that he is a former Navy Seal) to withstand the onslaught and find an antidote.
But, of course, with these kinds of films, the plot really doesn't matter. All that matters is that The Rock is playing the Pathologist and Naomi Harris plays a discredited genetic engineer. The two of them teams up with a mystery "agent" (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) to battle the bad guys - and the monsters.
But, of course, in these kinds of films, the characters don't really matter either. What REALLY matters in these kinds of films is the action and the CGI that is used to create these actions - and both of them are pretty good - at least, good enough.
Director Brad Peyton teams up again with The Rock (they were together for SAN ANDREAS and JOURNEY 2), so he knows not to linger too long on anything. He moves the plot (what there is of it) along smartly and focuses most of our attention on the action and only really stops for a joke or two - and they (for the most part) land just fine.
The Rock is, of course, THE ROCK in this film. He does "his thing" and he does it well. Jeffrey Dean Morgan basically plays the same character he plays on THE WALKING DEAD (but...he is a GOOD GUY here). Naomi Harris (still smelling fresh from her Oscar nominated turn in MOONLIGHT) clearly needs to pay for a house in Malibu by "slumming" it in this movie - I can see her conversation now...
"How much is that house in Malibu...?" (calls her Agent) "Hey...how much are they willing to pay me for the Giant Ape movie...?"
Malin Ackerman - never my favorite performer - is pretty one note as the main villain in the piece. She plays a Corporate Exec who wants to...wait for it...MONETIZE the giant animals!
But again, we are here to see The Rock and the giant Gorilla fighting the giant Wolf and Alligator - all the while destroying indentifiable landmarks in downtown Chicago.
And in that...this film succeeded...well enough.
Letter Grade B (it's probably a B- or C+, but I'm a sucker for these types of films).
7 (out of 10) stars and you and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And there are other times where all you want is to watch Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and a giant Gorilla fight a giant Wolf and a giant Alligator in downtown Chicago.
Guess which one RAMPAGE is?
Based on a video-game of the same name, RAMPAGE tells the tale of a primatologist who's "friend" (a gorilla) is infected with an experimental - and illegal - pathogen that turns him (and 2 other animals) into giant killing machines. It will take all the skills of this primatologist (did I mention that he is a former Navy Seal) to withstand the onslaught and find an antidote.
But, of course, with these kinds of films, the plot really doesn't matter. All that matters is that The Rock is playing the Pathologist and Naomi Harris plays a discredited genetic engineer. The two of them teams up with a mystery "agent" (played by Jeffrey Dean Morgan) to battle the bad guys - and the monsters.
But, of course, in these kinds of films, the characters don't really matter either. What REALLY matters in these kinds of films is the action and the CGI that is used to create these actions - and both of them are pretty good - at least, good enough.
Director Brad Peyton teams up again with The Rock (they were together for SAN ANDREAS and JOURNEY 2), so he knows not to linger too long on anything. He moves the plot (what there is of it) along smartly and focuses most of our attention on the action and only really stops for a joke or two - and they (for the most part) land just fine.
The Rock is, of course, THE ROCK in this film. He does "his thing" and he does it well. Jeffrey Dean Morgan basically plays the same character he plays on THE WALKING DEAD (but...he is a GOOD GUY here). Naomi Harris (still smelling fresh from her Oscar nominated turn in MOONLIGHT) clearly needs to pay for a house in Malibu by "slumming" it in this movie - I can see her conversation now...
"How much is that house in Malibu...?" (calls her Agent) "Hey...how much are they willing to pay me for the Giant Ape movie...?"
Malin Ackerman - never my favorite performer - is pretty one note as the main villain in the piece. She plays a Corporate Exec who wants to...wait for it...MONETIZE the giant animals!
But again, we are here to see The Rock and the giant Gorilla fighting the giant Wolf and Alligator - all the while destroying indentifiable landmarks in downtown Chicago.
And in that...this film succeeded...well enough.
Letter Grade B (it's probably a B- or C+, but I'm a sucker for these types of films).
7 (out of 10) stars and you and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
I have long written about the troubled history of bringing video game movies to the screen. For every success such as “Resident Evil” there are failures such as “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, “DOOM”, and countless others. In recent years studios have taken more control of films based on their titles and we have seen some better success at least from a financial point. I was on set and very briefly in “Postal” and “Far Cry” and between scenes it was explained to me that with many video game films, you can use names and a basic premise from the game, but visuals, scenarios and such are usually forbidden as they cannot follow past stories or impede on any possible new projects. What is left is usually something with the name of the game and a very loose association.
“Tomb Raider” and “Assassin’s Creed” recently had a solid box office and while “Warcraft” fizzled domestically it did well overseas but not enough to trigger a sequel but showed an upward trend of star power and bigger budgets for game related films.
All of which brings us to “Rampage”; which is based on a classic arcade game which spawned version on multiple gaming platforms and sequels over the years.
The movie stars Dwayne Johnson as Davis Okoye; a former military operative who joined an anti-poaching task force and now resides in San Diego caring for Primates. His associates note that he has a better relationship with the animals in his care than he does the people around him and Davis is more than fine with this.
His favorite animal is an Albino Gorilla named George and Davis has even managed to teach him and other members of the group to speak to him via sign language.
All seems well until debris from a satellite crashes into George’s enclosure one night as well as various locales around the country.
George begins to grow at an alarming rate and shows increased aggression which is troubling to Davis and draws the attention of a genetics company who are involved in a rogue genetics experiment and a disgraced scientist named Dr. Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris) who strive to help George and get control of the situation. Naturally the people behind the experiment are not going to let this happen and involve Government Agent Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), to transport them all to a secure locale.
Naturally things do not go as planned and with multiple creatures now on the loose and heading to Chicago, and the military powerless to stop the carnage, it is up to Davis to save George and save the day.
The film uses some lavish visuals to depict the creatures and the action scenes are very entertaining. For a game with a very basic premise, it was nice to see the attempt made to flesh out the backstory and characters and not make the film just an extended FX reel.
There are some scenes and lines that would not be appropriate for younger viewers as a couple at our screener seemed to have some issues with the intensity at times. That being said, “Rampage” delivers an over the top, campy, and fully entertaining mix of video games and classic monster movies. The strong cast and great effects make for an enjoyable action film as long as you accept things with a wink and a smile. I hope this is a success as I would love to see a future film in the series and Johnson, Morgan, and Harris were a very winning combination.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/11/rampage/
“Tomb Raider” and “Assassin’s Creed” recently had a solid box office and while “Warcraft” fizzled domestically it did well overseas but not enough to trigger a sequel but showed an upward trend of star power and bigger budgets for game related films.
All of which brings us to “Rampage”; which is based on a classic arcade game which spawned version on multiple gaming platforms and sequels over the years.
The movie stars Dwayne Johnson as Davis Okoye; a former military operative who joined an anti-poaching task force and now resides in San Diego caring for Primates. His associates note that he has a better relationship with the animals in his care than he does the people around him and Davis is more than fine with this.
His favorite animal is an Albino Gorilla named George and Davis has even managed to teach him and other members of the group to speak to him via sign language.
All seems well until debris from a satellite crashes into George’s enclosure one night as well as various locales around the country.
George begins to grow at an alarming rate and shows increased aggression which is troubling to Davis and draws the attention of a genetics company who are involved in a rogue genetics experiment and a disgraced scientist named Dr. Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris) who strive to help George and get control of the situation. Naturally the people behind the experiment are not going to let this happen and involve Government Agent Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), to transport them all to a secure locale.
Naturally things do not go as planned and with multiple creatures now on the loose and heading to Chicago, and the military powerless to stop the carnage, it is up to Davis to save George and save the day.
The film uses some lavish visuals to depict the creatures and the action scenes are very entertaining. For a game with a very basic premise, it was nice to see the attempt made to flesh out the backstory and characters and not make the film just an extended FX reel.
There are some scenes and lines that would not be appropriate for younger viewers as a couple at our screener seemed to have some issues with the intensity at times. That being said, “Rampage” delivers an over the top, campy, and fully entertaining mix of video games and classic monster movies. The strong cast and great effects make for an enjoyable action film as long as you accept things with a wink and a smile. I hope this is a success as I would love to see a future film in the series and Johnson, Morgan, and Harris were a very winning combination.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/11/rampage/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wrath of Man (2021) in Movies
Jun 16, 2021
Surprising Depth of Character and GREAT action
I am always up for a good “B” action flick - something mindless that shows a macho hero (usually seeking revenge) taking out a boatload of faceless/nameless bad guys. So it was with much anticipation that I settled back into my chair to clear my head and catch Jason Statham doing what he does best.
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
What I got was something much, much more.
Directed by Guy Ritchie (LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS), WRATH OF MAN tells the tale of seemingly innocent, meek, quiet man who takes a job with an Armored Car Company. Of course, since this meek man is played with a steely-eyed gaze by Jason Statham, there is something more to him. In the course of this film, of course, we find out.
Ritchie is a seasoned veteran Director of these sorts of films (LOCK STOCK…, SNATCH and the recent THE GENTLEMEN being examples of his ability) and this film nicely showcases his skill. He sets up the characters and the action scenes deftly and he does something that I really love to see in a film - he shows the same action scene from 3 different character's’ perspectives, every time we view the same scene from a different point of view it adds some depth to the scene (and the characters). It is this aspect of the film - the depth of character - that I was not expecting to see.
Statham, of course, is perfectly cast as the mysterious “H”. He has a strength of character (as well as a physical strength) needed to drive this story forward. I believed his motivations as a character while eagerly anticipating his “turn on a dime” change from “meek and mild” to “action hero”. In lesser hands, it would have seemed corny, but with Statham (and the direction of Ritchie), it is not.
Ritchie, of course, fills this world with a “rogues gallery” of tough guys, henchmen, unlikely heroes and villians. Standouts of this group were veteran character actor Holt McCallany (a veritable “that guy” actor) who plays a fellow armored car driver, Jeffrey Donovan (TV’s BURN NOTICE) and Scott Eastwood (Clint’s son) as a couple of “bad guys” and Darrell D’Silva (a veteran of European films who was heretofore unknown to me) as one of Statham’s allies. Whenever D’Silva was on the screen, he would draw my attention (in a good way). I’ll be keeping an eye out for him in future films.
Also along for the fun are the great Eddie Marsan (as the Manager of the Armored Car Company) and a gravelly voiced Andy Garcia (as a shadowy person from Statham’s past). They both know exactly what type of film they are in and look like they are having fun with their roles. Oh…and there is also a Josh Hartnett sighting (the “it” actor of the early ‘2000’s). His character of another Armored Car Driver is the weakest written and least realized of the characters in this film - but it was fun to see him on screen again.
But…all of these fine qualities rise or fall on the Direction of the action sequences and in the capable hands of Guy Ritchie, these scenes succeed greatly. He sets up and choreographs the fights (both hand-to-hand and gun fights) in such a way that the audience is never confused about what is going on (unless it is a deliberate choice) and he eschews the quick-cut editing that (I feel) is a sign of a weakly conceived and choreographed fight.
I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this film - not only for the action, but for the depth of character and quality that was put up on the screen.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)