Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Terminator: Dark Fate (2019) in Movies
Nov 6, 2019
Good (enough) conclusion to the Franchise
After a few attempts at resurrecting this franchise, James Cameron has (wisely) decided to bury the franchise with one last TERMINATOR film starring the original Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger. TERMINATOR: DARK FATE is a direct sequel to T2: JUDGEMENT DAY (or so says Producer/Writer Cameron) as it ignores the 3rd and 4th movies in this series (as well as the television show THE SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES).
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is a wise move as it simplifies things and just lets us get on to what a Terminator movie does best - fantastic action sequences, state of the art CGI, a killer robot that will stop at nothing to accomplish it's mission, and a plucky hero or 2 to battle said killer robot.
Oh...did I mention that they recruit a Terminator to help them stop the Terminator?
And it all works well...enough. Set in this year (2019), TERMINATOR: DARK FATE tells the tale of what happens next after Sarah and John Connor stopped Judgement Day in the 2nd Terminator film. A deadly - even more dangerous - Terminator (version 9!) returns to 2019 to kill a single woman (Natalie Reyes). This time she is helped by an augmented human from the future (Mackenzie Davis) and...Sarah Connor! Returning to this film, all buffed up and aging, is a craggy voiced Linda Hamilton as Sarah, who brings an adequate amount of world-weary, "been there, done that" attitude to the proceedings that pretty much carry the first half of the film.
And...just as the film was beginning to sag in the middle, along comes Arnold.
Playing an aging Terminator (which is explained, well enough, in the plot), Arnold plays the Terminator (who has been living with humans for over 20 years) with a wink in his eye and a sense of humor about him. Yep...this is a Terminator with a funny bone. And - I'll be darned - it works! Thanks to the performance of Mr. Schwarzenegger. He knows exactly what kind of film he is in and brings the right amount of energy, muscle and humor to the proceedings. He pretty much carries this film on his broad shoulders for the 2nd half - and he carries it with ease.
Credit Director Tim Miller (DEADPOOL) for keeping things light, simple and moving along crisply. He, too, understands the type of film he is making (and the audience that will go see this type of film) so he keeps the dialogue light and snappy, the plot at it's simplest and the action as high as he can go - blowing things up at a moment's notice. It's not sublte art by any stretch of the imagination, but it is art - in a way - and art that he does well.
If this is the last Terminator film (and I hope it is), then it is going out on a high (enough) note. I was surprisingly entertained (and not preached to) and, I think that is all I could have hoped for in a Terminator flick.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harriet (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Harriet Tubman was among one of the most significant abolitionists in United States history. This film tells the story of her life where she was born in Maryland as a plantation slave. Named Araminta at “Minty” Ross, she transforms throughout her journey, becoming Harriet Tubman as well as transforming into Moses, the appropriate name for the person who leads.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
The story begins after church services where Minty’s husband John Tubman who was a free slave asks the plantation owner to allow Minty to be freed so their children would be born free instead of slaves. The slave owner, Henry Broadess (Mike Marunde played with a gleeful abundance of entitlement) denies the request. This is the spark where Araminta decides to run away to live as a free person.
Minty was known for her “spells” since the accident, where she was hit in the forehead by a thrown weight. The film interprets seizures as her conversation with God. The film uses these spells as her talks with and messages received from God. That is how Harriett’s visions are explained. That she has an ability to know where to go and what to from what she sees when she has an episode.
Harriet had saved herself from slavery. She made it to the State of Pennsylvania where she would be free. After a year or so, Harriet decided that she would not be able to rest comfortably as a “free slave” without her husband and her family. That is when she decided that she would go get her loved ones.
As we know from history, she saved her family and many others through the Underground Railroad. All her rescues were successful, totaling 70 that she brought to freedom. The Civil War began a few years later. We are shown Harriet, working with the Union Army to save the lives of about 700 slaves.
The film celebrates Harriet Tubman and provides a beautiful biographical film of this amazing woman. Cynthia Erivo should get a nomination or two come award season. Pssst, she already has a Tony from her performance of The Color Purple on Broadway and a Grammy. She is already halfway to an EGOT. The cast of the film is fantastic. Leslie Odom Jr. as William Still, the man who kept the records of each emancipated slave and provided new identities to help them. Then there is Janelle Monae, as Mary Buchanon, born a free woman. She was among the group that helped Harriet make a new life in Philadelphia.
The film tells a brave tale, but it glosses over the dark history of slavery. Yes, it is one of the dark chapters in humanity. The atrocities committed in the name of self-preservation are despicable. The creators of the movie could have provided a more realistic representation of a picture of slavery.
This film is very good. Ms. Erivo performs effortlessly as Harriet. The supporting cast are very good. Harriet Tubman was a hell of a woman back in the day. I liked the movie. I also would have liked to have slavery shown in stark reality, not coated in idealism.
JT (287 KP) rated Escape From L.A. (1996) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
John Carpenter’s offering into the world of sequels couldn’t have been worse. Kurt Russell said he had a desire to play Snake Plissken once again and to be honest I wished he hadn’t bothered.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating. I have made my way through bad films over the years but this one really takes the title. After Carpenter’s engrossing and dark Escape from New York hit screens in 1981 a sequel was always going to be on the cards, but maybe they waited too long for it.
The plot is similar to the first, Plissken is yet again asked to save the day despite being injected with a virus that will kill him in within nine hours, although giving him ample time to save the day. This time he has to enter L.A. now separated from America after an earthquake and where the worst of the worst are sent, there he must retrieve a black box containing controls to a super weapon.
I had a hard enough time to muster the energy to watch this, and even more to award it a one star rating
What really wound me up about this film were the most shoddy special effects ever! When you take into consideration that this came out at a similar time to the very excellent Independence Day whose CGI effects were second to none for the time, there was no comparison.
You have to wonder what Carpenter’s budget of $50,000,0000 went towards, Plissken’s underwater entry into L.A. is hilarious and is even worth the watch just for that alone.
The addition of a few more well known characters do manage to brighten the proceedings, such as Steve Buscemi as Map to the Stars Eddie and Bruce Campbell as Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, but they do very little to save this from being a complete disaster.
Russell allegedly wrote the ending to this, and to be honest it shows. If you were a fan of the first then I would leave this one well alone!
Lovecraft's Monsters
8.5
Rate It
Book
This deliciously creepy and loving tribute to the master of modern horror features riveting...
Short stories lovecraft horror sci-fi
Alex Kapranos recommended track Lady Rachel by Kevin Ayers in Confessions of Doctor Dream and Other Stories by Kevin Ayers in Music (curated)
Illeana Douglas recommended Rosemary's Baby (1968) in Movies (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
It is 1934, and our moustachioed detective has just solved a theft in Jerusalem. He looks forward to resting in Istanbul, but his break is interrupted with the news that he must return to London for a case. It seems like Poirot's luck is in, having just met his friend who is director of the Orient Express.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
Once on board Poirot catches the attention of the businessman, Samuel Ratchett. Ratchett has received threatening letters, and wishes to hire the detective as his bodyguard during their journey, but the offer is politely declined.
That night an avalanche derails he train and the passengers are stranded. In the morning Ratchett is found dead, stabbed a dozen times. Poirot and Bouc, the train director, investigate the passengers as repairs begin. Poirot discovers a partially destroyed note connecting Ratchett to the kidnapping of Daisy Armstrong, a child who was abducted from her bedroom and held for ransom. After the ransom was paid, Daisy was found murdered. Ratchett is identified as John Cassetti, Daisy’s kidnapper and murderer.
First off, let me address the elephant in the room... that'll be Kenneth Branagh as Poirot. David Suchet will always be my Poirot, he's perfect. Branagh, for me, has an overacting issue. And that moustache, it's just ridiculous. That's not even taking into account the scene where Poirot is laying in bed and he doesn't have his night-time moustache cosy on. Crazy.
Agatha Christie's tale has definitely been given the Hollywood treatment. It's gone from the quite dark Suchet version, to something quite farcical in comparison. I can understand remaking some things, but when you have such a definitive portrayal of a character why would you recast them?
Having just rewatched the 2010 version I will say that the story line in the movie is probably easier to understand. It's also more suitable for a younger audience.
As a passing comment to everyone who was surprised to hear they were going to do Death On The Nile next... no shit, Poirot! It was dropped in at the end of the film.
The Patchwork Girl of Oz
9.0
Rate It
Book
In this dazzling tale, L. Frank Baum proves once again his power to delight and enchant readers of...
Kill the Father
8.5
Rate It
Book
'The rock cast a sharp, dark shadow over a shape huddled on the ground. Please don't let it be the...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Michael Bay had a lot to prove with the third instalment of his big bot franchise. The scathing reviews of Revenge of the Fallen from nearly every critic who went to see it proved that even giant robots aren’t safe from the picky eyes of the global audience. Now, I may get lambasted for this but I preferred number 2 to number 1, so let’s see if number 3 can impress.
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/
Here, Bay returns to helm the latest addition: Dark of the Moon, it’s a good film nonetheless but it’s sci-fi themes, more so than in either of the previous offerings fail to provide enough impact to make it the best in the series.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon picks up three years after the last film and a lot has changed. Sam Witwicky again played by the fantastic Shia LeBeouf is now living in Washington, envious of his new girlfriend Carly Spencer and her fabulous lifestyle. Carly, played by newcomer Rosie Huntington-Whitely is about as wooden as a character can get; Whitely’s performance is very laboured and her on screen scenes suffer as a result; she’s a disappointment in a film that doesn’t really require it’s characters to do much; so that shows how bad she actually is.
Megan Fox is actually missed this time around, but it’s not too much of a problem because Rosie’s character is given exactly the same clothes, the same pout and practically the same lines.
Michael Bay has also lined up the legendary John Malkovich as Sam’s troubled new boss, his screen time is worth a watch but he feels wasted considering his lines amount to about 10 minutes of screen time. Patrick Dempsey also stars as good guy gone back; Dylan Gould.
The special effects coupled with the fantastic 3D make Transformers 3 a spectacle to watch, the bots are seamlessly integrated into the picture alongside their human counterparts and deliver once again, these films really are the pinnacle now for special effects.
Bay has managed to fashion a half coherent story out of the toy franchise which many critics were sceptical of, but it works really well. The film focuses on the space race of the 60’s and the reasons why the US wanted to beat everyone to the moon. In short, the Decepticons are looking for something that crash-landed on the moon; if they find it, then Cybertron will be reborn, using Earth as a template; oh no!
The last hour is just carnage, carnage, carnage as the entire city of Chicago is plunged into a post-apocalyptic world where the Decepticons rule and the Autobots are, alongside humans as slaves. Here, Bay really showcases his prowess for stunning cinematography and first class special effects, one scene in particular, involving a glass skyscraper is particularly awe-inspiring.
Speaking of the robots themselves, all the favourites return with their fantastic voice acting. Peter Cullen delivers Optimus Prime in his usual, gruff manner and a welcome addition is Star Trek’s Leonard Nimoy as veteran Autobot leader Sentinel Prime. Hugo Weaving also returns as a rough looking Megatron.
The problem that blights Transformers 3 is that there’s too much going on. I found myself lost in parts of the story because the film is constantly rushing to get to the next plot line. It’s frustrating that a film franchise criticised for its lack of story is penalised for having too much of one this time around, but this is the case here. As such, some of the best characters don’t get screen time. Josh Duhamel is only in the film for 5 minutes at a time, whilst Sam’s parents only get brief appearances which is a tragic shame as they are, all in all, the best human characters in the franchise.
Overall, Transformers has become one of my favourite film franchises of all time; it delivers on its promise and doesn’t pretend it’s going to be something else. Yes, they’re far too long (this one is just short of 3 hours), they’re exceptionally loud and mind-numbingly obnoxious but that’s what you should want from an action film. Transformers 3 delivers, and it delivers it like a smack in the face; but it falls down in a couple of areas where the others didn’t.
Michael Bay is a very talented film director who gives the best out of everything, but in response to his critics from the last movie, he has developed too much of the story and as such, it feels disjointed and ultimately a little disappointing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/07/07/transformers-dark-of-the-moon-2011/