Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Bag Man (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Sometimes it sucks to be a delivery guy when you don’t know what you are
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
carrying in a tightly sealed leather bag. Anything can happen when too many
people are interested in what The Bag Man is carrying when it gets a
limited theatrical run starting Feb 28th.
When Jack (John Cusack) is a fixer/hitman under the employ of Dragna
(Robert De Niro), a crime lord — tasked to bring a leather bag to a seedy
hotel — the people he runs into are more shadier than he is. All he has to
do is to wait for the arrival of this gangster and not look at what’s
inside.
Both the movie and night is long while Jack fends for himself. His dealings
with the motel manager (beautifully played by Crispin Glover) is far more
interesting than the lady of the night, Rivka (Rebecca Da Costa), he meets.
Together what they end up in is a cat and mouse game of nearly everybody
from this sleepy hole-in-the-wall after them. Everyone is interested in
what the bag contains, and this Macguffin never strays far from the plot.
Even though the concept of what’s in the bag is hardly original, this
narrative device will keep some people — characters included — invested
in wondering what’s so important about it. When the contents are revealed,
will what’s revealed be King Midas’ gold or the evils from Pandora’s Box?
This loose thriller has its moments where viewers will be glued to the
suspense but ultimately, it’s this movie’s pacing that slows the action
down. Losing 10-15 minutes might help in keeping the tale tight.
That can help everyone, audience included, from not losing interest. Sooner
or later, the cat has to be let out of the bag.
The Man Who Saw the Future: A Biography of William Lilly
Book
Winter, 1643. Astrologer William Lilly is gazing at a pot of piss. Parliament has asked him to help:...
Catch That Tiger
Noel Botham and Bruce Montague
Book
With exclusive access toprivate diariesand dozens of photographs, this is theincredible story of one...
His Truth is Marching On
Book
John Lewis, who at age twenty-five marched in Selma, Alabama, and was beaten on the Edmund Pettus...
Punk Drunk And Trembling by Wild Beasts
8.3
Rate It
Album Watch
England's Wild Beasts were founded in 2002 by Hayden Thorpe (guitar, vocals) and Ben Little...
indie
Tombland (The Shardlake series Book 7)
Book
Summer, 1549. Two years after the death of Henry VIII, England is sliding into chaos . . . The...
Robin Hood: Hero of the People
6.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Play as Robin Hood and his merry men in this solo card game. As Robin Hood you’ll rob from the...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Oct 15, 2019
In “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil”; Angelina Jolie returns as the title character to the smash Live-Action film based on the classic Fairy Tale and Animated film.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
In the years since the last film ended; Aurora (Elle Fanning) has relished in her role as Princess over the Moors and all of the enchanted creatures that live within it. When she accepts a proposal from Prince Phillip (Harris Dickinson), this sets off a chain of celebratory events as they all prepare for the big day which will unite the two lands.
Phillip’s parents King John (Robert Lindsay) and Queen Ingrith (Michelle Pfeiffer) are eager for the union while Maleficent strongly opposes it and tells Aurora that there will be no wedding. When Aurora persists; Maleficent reluctantly accepts an invitation to dinner at the Castle where things soon go horribly wrong and Maleficent is accused of putting a curse on the King.
Injured while fleeing, Maleficent is wounded and takin in by others of her kind who are preparing for war against the humans as a dark and dangerous plan is underway and the survival of the enchanted creatures is threatened.
The film then becomes a tense adventure with plenty of action, magic, and fantasy which is a nice framework for the great visual effects of the film.
I had been concerned that the film might be too dark for the usual audience for this type of film and there are moments where my concerns are validated. However there is much more charm, fantasy and wonder in the film and if anyone has ever read the original Grimm Fairy Tales; they will know that this is considerably toned down compared to what they offered.
The film has some great visuals to it but they never overshadow the characters in the film as Jolie seems to be taking gleeful delight in playing the title character but allows herself to have some fun with the character at times which helps her emerge as a well-rounded character versus being a staple Fairy Tale Villain.
The film may take a bit of time getting up to the main events but it does so to give more time for the characters to develop which helps them stand out from the usual good/bad monikers given to many fantasy characters.
The supporting cast is solid especially the performances by Pfeiffer and Chiwetel Ejiofor who add much to the complexity of the film and also invoke many themes of discussion that mirrors what is happening in much of society today.
In the end the film delivers a strong performance by Jolie and plenty of magic to make this a modern Fairy Tale Disney classic in the making.
3.5 stars out of 5.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 2, 2021
Could have used more Kong versus Godzilla
If you are going to sit down and watch a movie that is entitled GODZILLA vs. KONG, you pretty much know what you are going to get, the highest your expectation should be is a “pretty fun B picture” with a giant Gorilla and a giant Lizard punching it out.
And…that is pretty much what you get…though the “laws of diminishing returns” is catching up to this franchise.
It all started with the reboot of GODZILLA in 2014 - a better than B “B Movie” that introduced audiences to Monarch and the Monsters they were following. This was followed up by the “very much a B Movie” KONG: SKULL ISLAND where Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and a host of others run around, getting picked off one-by-one in an enjoyable romp and hopes remained high for the ongoing Kong/Godzilla “Universe”.
Unfortunately, 2019’s GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS was a step down and the franchise showed signs of weakness with weaker plot lines…even weaker human characters…and overblown special effects.
Next came this film, GODZILLA vs. KONG - it was supposed to be released in theaters last summer, but because of the pandemic made it’s theatrical release at the same time it was shown on HBO Max (where I viewed it) - and I’m glad they did that, for if I would have shelled out money in a movie theater to check out this mess, I would have been angry, indeed.
GODZILLA vs. KONG follows, unfortunately, the trend started by GODZILLA: KING OF THE THE MONSTERS in that it has overblown CGI action with very little in the way of coherent plot and characters that you couldn’t care less about. It’s a mess of a movie that strings together a slim plot to get from one CGI battle to another.
But…if it has CGI Giant Gorilla on CGI Radioactive Lizard fighting in it…it should be fine, right? Well…that’s where Director Adam Wingard (YOU’RE NEXT) really fails, for a movie called GODZILLA vs. KONG has very little Kong fighting Godzilla in it…so one cannot even get too excited by that.
To be fair to this film, it doesn’t try to be anything more than it is intended to be - a “B” flick with giant monsters fighting each other, but…it only manages to be a B- flick at best. So, feel free to kick back and watch the CGI action, you’ll enjoy most of it - just don’t spend too much time looking for plot or characters that you care about.
And…unfortunately…it’s making me care less and less about future sequels - or the future of the Kong/Godzilla Universe.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…that is pretty much what you get…though the “laws of diminishing returns” is catching up to this franchise.
It all started with the reboot of GODZILLA in 2014 - a better than B “B Movie” that introduced audiences to Monarch and the Monsters they were following. This was followed up by the “very much a B Movie” KONG: SKULL ISLAND where Samuel L. Jackson, John Goodman and a host of others run around, getting picked off one-by-one in an enjoyable romp and hopes remained high for the ongoing Kong/Godzilla “Universe”.
Unfortunately, 2019’s GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS was a step down and the franchise showed signs of weakness with weaker plot lines…even weaker human characters…and overblown special effects.
Next came this film, GODZILLA vs. KONG - it was supposed to be released in theaters last summer, but because of the pandemic made it’s theatrical release at the same time it was shown on HBO Max (where I viewed it) - and I’m glad they did that, for if I would have shelled out money in a movie theater to check out this mess, I would have been angry, indeed.
GODZILLA vs. KONG follows, unfortunately, the trend started by GODZILLA: KING OF THE THE MONSTERS in that it has overblown CGI action with very little in the way of coherent plot and characters that you couldn’t care less about. It’s a mess of a movie that strings together a slim plot to get from one CGI battle to another.
But…if it has CGI Giant Gorilla on CGI Radioactive Lizard fighting in it…it should be fine, right? Well…that’s where Director Adam Wingard (YOU’RE NEXT) really fails, for a movie called GODZILLA vs. KONG has very little Kong fighting Godzilla in it…so one cannot even get too excited by that.
To be fair to this film, it doesn’t try to be anything more than it is intended to be - a “B” flick with giant monsters fighting each other, but…it only manages to be a B- flick at best. So, feel free to kick back and watch the CGI action, you’ll enjoy most of it - just don’t spend too much time looking for plot or characters that you care about.
And…unfortunately…it’s making me care less and less about future sequels - or the future of the Kong/Godzilla Universe.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Pet Sematary (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020 (Updated Nov 1, 2020)
A Really Good Remake
Pet Semetary is a 2019 supernatural horror movie directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer. The movie was written by Jeff Buhler with screen story by Matt Greenberg. It is a remake/reboot of the original 1989 film adaptation of the 1983 Stephen King novel. Starring Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, and John Lithgow.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.
Moving to the small town of Ludlow, Maine with his family: wife, Rachel (Amy Seimetz), children, Ellie (Jete Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie), and Church, Ellie's cat, Louis Creed takes a job at the university's hospital. Ellie stumbles upon a procession of children, while exploring the nearby woods of their new home, who are taking a dead dog to a pet cemetery. Their neighbor, Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), finds Ellie climbing a large stack of branches forming a wall and warns Rachel and Ellie not to venture out alone as the woods can be dangerous.. The following day, Louis fails to save a student Victor Pascow (Obssa Ahmed) fatally injured from a car accident, and is left shaken. That night Louis meets Pascow in a vivid dream, where he is lead to the pet cemetery and warned not to "venture beyond". When Louis awakens he is disturbed to find his bed sheets and feet, muddy and dirty suggesting his "vision" could be more than just a bad dream.
As far as remakes go this one was really good. Especially for the horror genre. I mean I can't tell you how many remakes/reboots I've seen that just bomb and don't do the original justice. This one however seemed to keep the original in mind, while still making changes to keep it fresh and relatively different. That being said I do feel it was a bit over-hyped and didn't live up to certain expectations. To me it was a very creepy movie and had me wanting to cover my eyes in one part as memories from the original played back in my head. The sounds of the character Rachel's sister calling out to her got goosebumps on my forearms. Those parts were very unsettling to me but I didn't feel enough was "scary". I really enjoyed the twists and changes or differences from the original. They were welcome and kept it from being an exact replica and a copy of the original. As another critic stated, Jeffrey M. Anderson-Common Sense Media, the film was "...effectively unsettling, focusing on the characters and their understandable emotions rather than on overt gore and FX." I give it a 7/10.