Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Enemy Within in TV
Jul 7, 2020
Captivating Premise, But Failure On Delivery
The Enemy Within is a drama tv series created by Ken Woodruff with executive producers Mark Pellington and Vernon Sanders. It was produced by 82nd West and Universal Television and distributed by NBC Universal Television Distribution. The series stars Jennifer Carpenter, Morris Chestnut, Raza Jaffrey, and Kelli Garner.
In 2015, when Russian terrorist Mikhail Vassily Tal threatens her daughter, Erica Shepard, CIA Deputy Director of Operations, is forced to reveal the names of four agents. Erica is arrested by FBI Agent Will Keaton when the agents are killed, sentenced to 15 life sentences and labeled one of America's most notorious traitors. Agent Keaton is ordered to bring Shepherd out of confinement to help with stopping and capturing Tal and his network of spies when Tal strikes again three years later.
This show was very captivating with it's pilot episode and it's premise, however it seemed very much ordinary despite the good acting and performances from pretty good actors. I kept waiting for it to get better but it never really did. I think other similar shows are probably better or worth the time instead of this one. Maybe Blindspot or Blacklist or even FBI. It's a shame too because it was starting to grow on me when towards the end of the season the characters were really coming into their own in their quest to get the bad guy. Also it got cancelled after first season. I give it a (5/10).
In 2015, when Russian terrorist Mikhail Vassily Tal threatens her daughter, Erica Shepard, CIA Deputy Director of Operations, is forced to reveal the names of four agents. Erica is arrested by FBI Agent Will Keaton when the agents are killed, sentenced to 15 life sentences and labeled one of America's most notorious traitors. Agent Keaton is ordered to bring Shepherd out of confinement to help with stopping and capturing Tal and his network of spies when Tal strikes again three years later.
This show was very captivating with it's pilot episode and it's premise, however it seemed very much ordinary despite the good acting and performances from pretty good actors. I kept waiting for it to get better but it never really did. I think other similar shows are probably better or worth the time instead of this one. Maybe Blindspot or Blacklist or even FBI. It's a shame too because it was starting to grow on me when towards the end of the season the characters were really coming into their own in their quest to get the bad guy. Also it got cancelled after first season. I give it a (5/10).
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Back to the Future Part II (1989) in Movies
Apr 14, 2019
Continues the story very well
Not many sequels not only continue right where the first film ended, but at such a fever pitch. Seems like from the moment this film starts with Doc, Marty and Jennifer going to see "their kids" in 2015, the story never really stops.
It's funny now to look at the film since we are already well past the "future" time of what filmmakers got correct (Cubs winning the World Series against "Miami" and video chatting) and what they had incorrect (flying cars, fax machines, Hover Boards). They still has mailboxes on the city streets!
Since parts 2 and 3 were filmed back to back (one of the first times this was done) the screenplay does a ton of foreshadowing of what is to come which is really cool. When Doc talks about trying to conquer "women" or how he would like to visit the Old West.
As with most time travel films, if you start to think about some of the nuances or small details too much some of them don't really jive, but this is a small detail.
I love how the last third of the film really weaves in between the events of the original Back to the Future film trying hard not to change any of those events to keep the narrative and "timeline" going as best as possible.
I remember sitting there when it ended really mad I had to wait until May of 1990 (6 whole months later) to find out what happened to Marty and Doc. Not quite as bad as having to wait 3 years to find out what happened to Han Solo after he was frozen in Carbonite, but that's another story.
It's funny now to look at the film since we are already well past the "future" time of what filmmakers got correct (Cubs winning the World Series against "Miami" and video chatting) and what they had incorrect (flying cars, fax machines, Hover Boards). They still has mailboxes on the city streets!
Since parts 2 and 3 were filmed back to back (one of the first times this was done) the screenplay does a ton of foreshadowing of what is to come which is really cool. When Doc talks about trying to conquer "women" or how he would like to visit the Old West.
As with most time travel films, if you start to think about some of the nuances or small details too much some of them don't really jive, but this is a small detail.
I love how the last third of the film really weaves in between the events of the original Back to the Future film trying hard not to change any of those events to keep the narrative and "timeline" going as best as possible.
I remember sitting there when it ended really mad I had to wait until May of 1990 (6 whole months later) to find out what happened to Marty and Doc. Not quite as bad as having to wait 3 years to find out what happened to Han Solo after he was frozen in Carbonite, but that's another story.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/