Search
Search results
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2055 KP) rated Big Honkin' Zits (Zits Treasury, #2) in Books
Mar 9, 2018
A second treasury of the comic strip Zits containing all the laughs from two smaller collections. Jeremy is a teenager who struggles with normal teenage things. The laughs are strong.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/04/book-review-big-honkin-zits-by-jerry.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Read my full review at <a href="http://carstairsconsiders.blogspot.com/2013/04/book-review-big-honkin-zits-by-jerry.html">Carstairs Considers</a>.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Powerless (The Hero Agenda, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<strong>Guys, I've found the Fight Book of the Year.</strong> At this rate I'm actually wondering if there's such a thing as a Blogger's Choice Awards so I can actually <i>nominate</i> this.
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
(If there is one, point me there NOW. I'll love you forever. :p)
In a world with heroes and villains, Kenna Swift works as an intern in a lab. While working in the lab one night, Kenna gets attacked by villains and is even saved by one of them. Being saved by a villain causes her to think about what a hero or a villain really is, and she ends up teaming up with them after finding out that maybe heroes aren't exactly heroes.
<b>I actually like Kenna as a character. Considering her circumstances, she's actually pretty brilliant and resourceful</b> when all else fails, kick butt by kneeing someone in the balls. She even had an experiment before everything went Inferno to try and become a hero as well instead of being powerless. <b>Her brilliance and intelligence sometimes fall short in the midst of chaos, but I pretty much approve her as a character.</b>
Except... I'm still irritated. <strong><i>Powerless</i> just has sooo many arguments and fights. The characters fight with each other constantly verbally and physically. The fighting takes up over half of the book</strong> when Kenna, Rebel, and Jeremy team up with villains. Kenna is basically a bystander, Rebel is ironically the glue, and Jeremy is going neck to neck with Draven. Nitro and Dante already have some tension between them. <strong>There's boy drama and fighting thrown together, and it is SO. DARN. IRRITATING.</strong>
Have I mentioned <strong>it sounds completely immature?</strong> By some point in the book, I've deemed <i>Powerless</i> <b>a book unworthy of memorability in my brain simply because of the number of fights that belong in a playground with unruly little kids tugging each other consistently.</b> The amount was also great enough I mentally started to threaten poor A.G. Howard's <i>Unhinged</i>.
But of course, <i><a title="Splintered by A.G. Howard" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-splintered-by-ag-howard/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">Splintered</a></i> has a love triangle to which I feel completely indifferent to regardless of the fact I like the world and read the second book to determine which, if any, corner actually deserves my complete and utmost devotion.
(It also inspired a few discussion posts for the future. *tucks posts in an invisible drawer*)
Anyways, back to the fights. The majority of book are the characters not getting along for most of the book it's akin to the <a title="Lark by Erica Cope" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-lark-by-erica-cope/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">romance overshadowing the plot</a> and I found it highly annoying. Meanwhile, <strong>I'm left with questions about the entire world after reading the book and none of them actually got answered.</strong><strong>
</strong>
How does this whole power thing work? Are powers inherited, or are they random? Is being a villain or hero random, or are they inherited (that seems to be yes)? Why was the hero/villain world created? HOW was it created? Was it an experiment gone awry? Is it similar to Captain America?
I got vague answers or no answers. Childs and Deebs may answer those questions in the sequels, or perhaps it's the overall plot of the series, but, I don't really see how it will all fit with what they've laid out in <i>Powerless</i>. <b>It's plot-driven and doesn't take too much time to develop the world or the characters, but makes you question what is considered good and evil.</b>
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-powerless-by-tera-lynn-childs-and-tracey-deebs/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated S.W.A.T. (2003) in Movies
Jan 14, 2021
Surprisingly Thrilling
I'm honestly surprised at how much I liked this film. I think the cast is phenomenal - I'm partial to anything Michelle Rodriguez is in - and I love Samual L. Jackson, Jeremy Renner, L.L Cool J, Colin Farrell, they were all great.
I think what surprised me the most was the dynamic between all the characters. It felt very effortless and natural, I don't think it was hard for them to get along, at least it didn't seem like it. And I think that they played friends to enemies to disappointed counterparts really well - specifically Renner and Farrell. They're both really strong actors and the subtleties they provided both their characters was really phenomenal.
I also loved seeing Jeremy in a different kind of role. I feel like we're partial to seeing him as Hawkeye, the Avenger, the hero, and this movie allowed him to be seen as something different. Granted it came out before the Avengers was ever probably a concept, but the point still stands. Also, the earrings. Loved those on him. But that's a minor detail.
Anyways! I really liked this film. Definitely worth the watch and not just a generic action film.
I think what surprised me the most was the dynamic between all the characters. It felt very effortless and natural, I don't think it was hard for them to get along, at least it didn't seem like it. And I think that they played friends to enemies to disappointed counterparts really well - specifically Renner and Farrell. They're both really strong actors and the subtleties they provided both their characters was really phenomenal.
I also loved seeing Jeremy in a different kind of role. I feel like we're partial to seeing him as Hawkeye, the Avenger, the hero, and this movie allowed him to be seen as something different. Granted it came out before the Avengers was ever probably a concept, but the point still stands. Also, the earrings. Loved those on him. But that's a minor detail.
Anyways! I really liked this film. Definitely worth the watch and not just a generic action film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Jun 27, 2020
Clever and Inventive
Ever since he burst onto the film scene with back-to-back interesting British Mob movies LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS and SNATCH, Director Guy Ritchie has had a "hit and miss" track record (including the Madonna-starring, Razzie-Award "winner" SWEPT AWAY). Fortunately, for us, we seem to be in a Guy Ritchie "peak" a this moment.
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Following up to his surprise strong Directing turn in the live action ALADDIN remake (if you haven't seen this film, the BankofMarquis strongly recommends you do), Ritchie returns to his "British Gangster" roots with the violent, funny and original THE GENTLEMEN.
Starring Matthew McConaughey as a U.S. born and bred, Cambridge educated hustler who becomes king of the British Marijuana scene who is looking to get out of the business, THE GENTLEMEN tells the tale of the...ahem...gentlemen that are pursuing (both legitimately and illegitimately) his empire.
The way that this film is constructed, the most essential casting of this film is that of the central character of Michael Pearson. He is billed as an enigmatic, charismatic, violent and brilliant legend of the British drug trade, so Ritchie needed someone with all these qualities to inhabit that role. Fortunately, with McConaughey, Ritchie finds his man (I'm sure the backstory of this character needed to be tweaked a bit upon this casting to explain why an American is the king of British Weed). McConaughey is at his laconic best in this role, bringing star quality - and star power - that holds the center of this film together well.
He is joined by a strong cast that understands the type of film they are in and are game to join in on the (violent) fun. Michelle Dockery (DOWNTON ABBEY), Henry Golding (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) , Jeremy Strong (THE BIG SHORT) and the always watchable Eddie Marsan (THE WORLD'S END, amongst others) all are strong in the limited moments that their characters are allowed to shine, but with McConaughey and 3 other actors I will speak to in a moment, they are relegated mostly to the background.
This is because Hugh Grant (4 WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL), Colin Farrell (PHONE BOOTH) and (surpisingly) Charlie Hunnam IPACIFIC RIM) almost steal the film from McConaughey, Each one of these characters could have easily been the centerpiece of their own film and I would be happy if Ritchie would spin one of these characters off.
Credit, of course, for all of this has to go to Ritchie who wrote and directed this film I was pleasantly surprised by the cleverness and inventiveness in storytelling and style as well as the restraint that Ritchie shows in the violence. He uses it (somewhat) sparingly and well, so the violence punctuates the action.
All-in-all a fun (though violent) time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Mar 14, 2018
Thoughtful, provocative murder mystery
The back 1/2 of August has traditionally been a dumping ground for bad motion pictures. One exception to this was last year when the deserved Oscar nominated film HELL OR HIGH WATER was released (if you still haven't caught up with this, I highly recommend you do). So when I saw that the writer of HHW, Taylor Sheridan, was coming out with another modern sheriff murder mystery, I was intrigued to say the least.
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And, I am happy to report, that this film did not disappoint. While it is not at the level of HHW, it certainly is a thoughtful, provocative murder mystery that is a refreshing change from the normal SuperHero, GGI-fests that festoon the cineplex throughout the course of the summer months.
Written and Directed by Sheridan (the screenwriter of HHW and SICARIO), WIND RIVER tells the tale of a murder on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming. Coming in to investigate is young, city girl, Florida native, Elizabeth Olsen who teams up with aTribal Police Captain (Graham Greene) and a veteran tracker (Jeremy Renner) to find out what happened.
This could have been a by-the-book murder mystery with the naive, "fish-out-of-water" Olsen learning to love and understand the world she is thrust into, but in the hands (and pen) of Sheridan, it is much, much more. Sheridan creates a mood throughout this film, one of slow, lingering dread and hopelessness - and how he accomplishes this was intriguing to me. He uses the setting of the Indian Reservation to show the "smallness" of the people living there, juxtaposing scenes of vast, wild, cold wilderness with scenes of squalor in the settlement of Native American people living there.
The acting is solid - Olsen is turning into a very good actress and her performance sets the right tone. Greene is, as always, a steady hand on the screen with a pragmatic approach to the inhabitants of the Reservation, but it is Jeremy Renner as the quiet, taciturn tracker who has a loss of his own that parallels the murder investigation, that shines. I've always liked Renner and was high on his potential after his breakout performance in THE HURT LOCKER in 2008. While his performances in the blockbusters that followed have been solid, but not spectacular - you saw glimpses of it in films like THE TOWN - but I've felt that he never quite lived up to that potential - until now. This is a very strong performance (falling just short of Oscar material) but one that anchors this film and mirrors the mood that Sheridan sets up through the location of WIND RIVER.
Not the fastest moving of films, but a thoughtful, intelligent mystery that left me grateful for a film with some meat on the bone after a summer of "Cotton Candy" action flicks
Letter Grade: B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Avengers: Endgame (2019) in Movies
May 11, 2019
"Part of the journey is the end"
A satisfying conclusion to the Infinity Saga, the best way to describe Avengers: Endgame is Fan Wish Fulfillment: The Movie. Seriously, this film lives and breathes fan service from top to bottom, yet it WORKS. Rather than coming off as obnoxiously pandering, the film’s use of fan service is more secondary to everything else, often being used in ways that are creative and even add to the comedy. And speaking of comedy, Avengers: Endgame is unquestionably one of the funniest films in the MCU, yet the comedy never detracts from the heart or the emotional weight of the film itself.
It’s legitimately shocking how much the Russo Bros have improved as filmmakers. Not only do they perfectly nail tonal consistency here, but most, if not all, of the drama scenes are well handled, the direction of actors is great, and even in terms of just visual composition (especially cinematography) and editing, they show major improvement here compared to their previous MCU works. There’s also some neat production design and Alan Silvestri provides a fantastic score.
Co-writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely’s screenplay is easily one of the strongest aspects of Avengers: Endgame. While some characters won’t get as much focus as others, the characters who are primarily focused on (Nebula, Tony, Steve and Hawkeye) each have legitimately really great, character arcs, and the way it ties them into the film’s theme of loss only makes them even better.
But despite the shockingly strong writing and direction, Avengers: Endgame mostly works so well due to its mostly committed ensemble. The acting is mostly pretty solid-strong across the board, with the standouts being Robert Downey Jr, Karen Gillan and Chris Evans who are excellent. That said, Chris Hemsworth, Brie Larson (in very minimal screen time), Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo,Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, Josh Brolin and Don Cheadle all have their moments as well.
If Avengers: Endgame really is a farewell to many characters people have grown to love, then it is almost certainly a rewarding and satisfying one, and the third act features one of the best battle sequences in any comic book film. It might not be absolutely perfect, but it’s well performed, strongly written & directed, thoroughly entertaining and incredibly satisfying, and you’ll laugh, cheer and most definitely even cry. Without a doubt one of the absolute best MCU installments to date.
It’s legitimately shocking how much the Russo Bros have improved as filmmakers. Not only do they perfectly nail tonal consistency here, but most, if not all, of the drama scenes are well handled, the direction of actors is great, and even in terms of just visual composition (especially cinematography) and editing, they show major improvement here compared to their previous MCU works. There’s also some neat production design and Alan Silvestri provides a fantastic score.
Co-writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely’s screenplay is easily one of the strongest aspects of Avengers: Endgame. While some characters won’t get as much focus as others, the characters who are primarily focused on (Nebula, Tony, Steve and Hawkeye) each have legitimately really great, character arcs, and the way it ties them into the film’s theme of loss only makes them even better.
But despite the shockingly strong writing and direction, Avengers: Endgame mostly works so well due to its mostly committed ensemble. The acting is mostly pretty solid-strong across the board, with the standouts being Robert Downey Jr, Karen Gillan and Chris Evans who are excellent. That said, Chris Hemsworth, Brie Larson (in very minimal screen time), Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo,Paul Rudd, Bradley Cooper, Josh Brolin and Don Cheadle all have their moments as well.
If Avengers: Endgame really is a farewell to many characters people have grown to love, then it is almost certainly a rewarding and satisfying one, and the third act features one of the best battle sequences in any comic book film. It might not be absolutely perfect, but it’s well performed, strongly written & directed, thoroughly entertaining and incredibly satisfying, and you’ll laugh, cheer and most definitely even cry. Without a doubt one of the absolute best MCU installments to date.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Survive or Surrender.
Of all of the movie released I missed during 2016 (typically due to work commitments) this one was one near the top of my list. I’m a fan of both Jeremy Renner and Elizabeth Olsen, and the setting and story to this one really appealed.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
And now I’ve caught up with it, I am not disappointed… certainly one that would have muscled its way well into my top 20 of last year.
Wind River is an Indian reservation in Wyoming (although its filmed in Utah). Natalie (Kelsey Asbille), a young Indian teen, is found in the snow raped and murdered by local tracker Cory Lambert (Jeremy Renner, “Arrival“, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“). The local police, led by Ben (Graham Greene), are surprised when a passionate but naive young FBI officer – Jane Banner (Elizabeth Olsen, “Avengers: Age of Ultron“) – arrives out of a blizzard without remotely sensible clothing. So begins an investigation into who committed the crime, where local knowledge and skills are more applicable than all the CSI-knowhow in the world.
Banner (Elizabeth Olsen) and Ben (Graham Greene) get to work.
This film is everything “The Snowman” should have been and wasn’t. At its heart, there are some memorable relationships established. Gil Birmingham (so good as Jeff Bridges’ right-hand man in “Hell or High Water“) plays Natalie’s dad, grieving and railing against all outsiders other than Cory, who he has a deep and close relationship with. For Cory has a back-story that goes beyond just him marrying into (and now separated from) Wilma (Julia Jones), a woman from the reservation.
Cowboys and Indians. Cory (Jeremy Renner) and Martin (Gil Birmingham) having a deep and moving discussion.
Cory himself has a role that is deep and multi-layered, and Renner is the perfect choice for it (although many scenes could have been cut and spliced into this from his – I thought really strong – Bourne spin-off “The Bourne Legacy”!). Here he has both action scenes and raw emotional scenes to tackle, and although perhaps he doesn’t quite pull off the latter to perfection, he comes pretty close.
“Do you wanna build a snowman?”. Cory is about to make a grim discovery.
Elizabeth Olsen – who seriously deserves more meaty roles like this – plays a ‘flibbertigibbet’ girl (there’s an old word that needs more airtime!) who turns out to have real internal steel. Yet another admirable female role model. #She-do!
The film also paints a vivid and intolerable picture of the dead-end nature of reservation life for many, with poor decisions as a teen (and we’ve all made those) here not being forgiven for the rest of your life.
Written and directed by Taylor Sheridan, who also wrote “Sicario“, “Hell or High Water” and the soon to appear Sicario sequel, “Soldado”, pens some fine and memorable dialogue. “Shouldn’t we wait for some backup?” asks Banner. Ben replies “This isn’t the land of backup. This is the land of you’re on your own”. It’s a film with useful tips as well, like NEVER, EVER go for a run in seriously sub-zero temperatures! (As I’m penning this review in sub-zero Canada at the moment, this is timely advice. #skiptheruntoday.) Sheridan won a Cannes Film Festival award as director for this, but arguably it’s a shame the script has been largely overlooked for the major awards so far.
And that land is one of the stars of the film as well. Filmed around the town of Park City in Utah, it’s gloriously snowy countryside with impressive mountain scenery.
Bleak but impressive, Utah is one of the stars.
My only quibble with the movie is that there are some elements of the plot that don’t quite gel properly. At various times, the heavens open and it buckets down – and I mean buckets down – with snow that must add inches to the landscape in minutes. And yet Cory can still point out tracks in the snow that were made days before? Huh? Also (without spoilers) some elements of communications are also conveniently unreliable when they need to be.
Will this be for everyone? While I commented that the excellent “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing.Missouri” (which shares similar background subject matter) did NOT have flashback scenes to the rape, this film does go there, and so might be upsetting for some viewers.
Girl in Trouble. Kelsey Asbille plays the victim Natalie.
But it’s a high-class, intelligent crime thriller that takes “Mexican standoff” to a whole new level. Recommended.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Watchmen - Season 1 in TV
Dec 26, 2019 (Updated Dec 27, 2019)
Pretty much perfect
Watchmen, in my opinion, is one of the best, if not the best graphic novels ever released. It's neon lit alternate reality setting and it's collection of jaded, flawed, and sometimes toxic characters were a far cry from usual comic book territory.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
I was absolutely buzzing when I heard that HBO were going to be airing a series based on the property. A series would have more room to breathe and for exploration than the movie (that I still like, for the record). When it became apparent that it would be set some time after the comic, I was honestly a bit miffed. I was looking forward to seeing Rorschach and Co on the small screen...
But it turns out, I had no reason to be worried. Watchmen is outstanding through and through.
Plot wise, it's set in present day, and maintains the events of the comic in the 1980s. The world we're presented with is a world still feeling the effects from the mass killing via giant squid monster from the comic. A world where the police cover their faces to protect their identities. A world where racism is still rife and peddled by a white supremacist group calling themselves The Seventh Cavalry, a group that happen to wear Rorschach masks.
It's set mainly in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it's distance from the neon New York setting of the comic gives it a more realistic feeling.
Angela Abar, aka Sister Night (Regina King), is heading the investigation into the Cavalry, and when things start to spiral out of control, the FBI send Laurie Blake (Jean Smart) - the retired Silk Spectre - to Tulsa to take over proceedings and figure out what's really happening behind the scenes.
To discuss the plot anymore than this would be spoiling it, but rest assured, after a fairly slow burning start, Watchmen quickly hits an ascending slope of quality that doesn't waver, and when concrete connections to the comic come out to play, the show hits some extremely lofty heights.
The cast are all brilliant. Regina King takes centre stage, and she manages to be badass, relatable, and sympathetic. Her relationship with her husband Cal (Yahya Abdul-Mateen II) is one of the best character elements throughout.
Characters that could be described more as 'side characters' played by the likes of Tim Blake Nelson, Louis Gossett Jr, James Woke, and Hong Chau (just to name a few), all end up with surprisingly strong development.
As for the characters from the original comic, we have the aforementioned Laurie Blake played by Jean Smart, and Adrian Veidt aka Ozymandius played by Jeremy Irons.
Jeremy Irons is a undoubtable highlight of the whole series. His portrayal of an older Veidt is pretty spot on, and his plot line is equal parts bizarre and humorous.
As seen from the trailers, Dr. Manhattan has a part to play here as well, but again, no spoilers here. Just have a look for yourself. It's great.
As the narrative jumps around and steams ahead, Watchmen still manages to touch on important subjects, such as war, family, and especially that of race and racism. There are some powerful moments littered throughout, and some genuinely emotional scenes that had me tearing up at times.
The direction and dialogue are brilliant, and the use of digital effects are mostly subtle and look great. The whole season is filled to the brim with amazing shots.
The music score is great as well, especially the original stuff, penned by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor's distinctive industrial sound suits the series down to the ground.
I absolutely loved Watchmen from start to finish. It's shows consistent willingness to do something new and it's a hugely ambitious project that's pulled off so damn well. I really hope that a second season comes about, but if it doesn't, then I'm suitably satisfied by what we've already been given. Just fantastic.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Thrilling from start to finish
Sci-fi seems to be having somewhat of a renaissance recently, that is, if you don’t count Independence Day: Resurgence which could’ve easily derailed the whole genre, never mind just the franchise.
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/
What with last year’s The Martian, the rebirth of Star Wars and the upcoming Passengers, sci-fi is really getting its mojo back. The subject of this review, Arrival, has been hailed as a masterpiece across the Atlantic. But is it worthy of such a strong adjective?
From the director of Prisoners and Sicario; Arrival is not only one of the best sci-fi films of the last year, it’s up there with the genre’s greatest assets. We’re talking a Close Encounters level of good.
Linguistics professor Louise Banks (Amy Adams) leads an elite team of investigators when humongous spaceships touch down in 12 locations around the world. As nations teeter on the verge of global war, Banks and her crew must race against time to find a way to communicate with the extra-terrestrial visitors. Hoping to unravel the mystery, she takes a chance that could threaten her life and quite possibly all of mankind.
Amy Adams leads a pleasing cast that includes commanding turns from Forest Whitaker and Jeremy Renner but it is in our female protagonist that we find the most joy. Adams is fast becoming one of Hollywood’s best actresses and her complex character is superbly written and incredibly well acted.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is truly exceptional with the alien craft taking a backseat to sweeping landscapes from across the world. The focal point of the film, a lush and open Montana valley is filmed to a breath-taking standard especially during Arrival’s opening sequences.
When it comes to special effects, director Denis Villeneuve doesn’t bombard the audience with constant CGI, instead opting for a laidback approach. Even the aliens themselves are understated in their appearance. It’s also fair to say that the film is a slow-burner with very little in the way of action – though it manages to stay well-clear of becoming tedious.
In spite of all this though, Arrival’s greatest strength is its story. This is thinking person’s sci-fi that somehow manages to cement its themes with an emotional heft of gravitational proportions. Throughout the 114 minute running time, we’re constantly reminded of our characters and where it is they come from, something missing from the majority of mass-market blockbusters these days.
Overall, Arrival is more than worthy of an adjective like masterpiece. From it’s incredible story and beautiful cinematography to what is Amy Adams’ best performance to date, it’s a new classic for the sci-fi genre and well worth a watch.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/11/11/thrilling-from-start-to-finish-arrival-review/