Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hot Tub Time Machine 2 (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When “Hot Tub Time Machine” came out almost five years ago, it took a whacky concept of four friends whisked back in time during a getaway to the 80s giving them a chance to fix aspects of their lives they wished they had done differently.
The outrageous and bawdy humor as well as strong performances from John Cusack and Crispin Glover made the film a cult hit that earned over $64 million worldwide and did well on DVD sales as well.
Naturally a sequel was planned and when I first heard it was looking to be a direct to DVD sequel sans Cusack, I had an idea that the film may be little more than an effort to cash in on the success of the first film without offering much to the continued story of the characters.
I was encouraged by the early trailers for the sequel and as such went into the screener with better expectations than I had originally had when I first heard of the projects.
The film explains that “John Cusack’s character is off on adventure of self-discovery as the friends have all become wealthy and famous after the events of the first film. Lou (Rob Corddry) has milked Motley Crue and his knowledge of pending tech to establish himself as a major player, Nick (Craig Robinson) has cashed in on a recording career by covering famous songs from his day before they were ever released and Jacob (Clark Duke) is stuck playing Butler to his father Lou.
Lou has become an example of an ego run wild and during one of his lavish parties; he is shot and left near death. In a move of desperation, Nick and Jacob whisk Lou into the Hot Tub and attempt to go back in time to stop the shooting.
Things do not go as planned as the trio end up 15 years into the future and must find a way to put things right and get home.
One would think that this premise would be able to produce some funny moments, but sadly the film is painfully slow and plodding and most shocking of all, very, very unfunny. The film tries to get some crude laughs from a gameshow of the future and a homicidal Smart Car but the film just wanders from situation to situation looking for laughs and does not setup or execute them properly.
There is a montage scene at the end of the film which sadly is the best part and shows what could have been a much better sequel with the group going through time taking the place of famous individuals and interacting with them.
As it stands, “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”, is a trip you do not want to make.
http://sknr.net/2015/02/20/hot-tub-time-machine-2/
The outrageous and bawdy humor as well as strong performances from John Cusack and Crispin Glover made the film a cult hit that earned over $64 million worldwide and did well on DVD sales as well.
Naturally a sequel was planned and when I first heard it was looking to be a direct to DVD sequel sans Cusack, I had an idea that the film may be little more than an effort to cash in on the success of the first film without offering much to the continued story of the characters.
I was encouraged by the early trailers for the sequel and as such went into the screener with better expectations than I had originally had when I first heard of the projects.
The film explains that “John Cusack’s character is off on adventure of self-discovery as the friends have all become wealthy and famous after the events of the first film. Lou (Rob Corddry) has milked Motley Crue and his knowledge of pending tech to establish himself as a major player, Nick (Craig Robinson) has cashed in on a recording career by covering famous songs from his day before they were ever released and Jacob (Clark Duke) is stuck playing Butler to his father Lou.
Lou has become an example of an ego run wild and during one of his lavish parties; he is shot and left near death. In a move of desperation, Nick and Jacob whisk Lou into the Hot Tub and attempt to go back in time to stop the shooting.
Things do not go as planned as the trio end up 15 years into the future and must find a way to put things right and get home.
One would think that this premise would be able to produce some funny moments, but sadly the film is painfully slow and plodding and most shocking of all, very, very unfunny. The film tries to get some crude laughs from a gameshow of the future and a homicidal Smart Car but the film just wanders from situation to situation looking for laughs and does not setup or execute them properly.
There is a montage scene at the end of the film which sadly is the best part and shows what could have been a much better sequel with the group going through time taking the place of famous individuals and interacting with them.
As it stands, “Hot Tub Time Machine 2”, is a trip you do not want to make.
http://sknr.net/2015/02/20/hot-tub-time-machine-2/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Robin Hood (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
If you think you know the tale of Robin Hood in its entirety, think again. A prequel to the traditional story, “Robin Hood” provides the long awaited history of the most classic of well-intentioned thieves and his band of men…who are merry.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sherlock Gnomes (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
The original "Gnomeo & Juliet" movie was a sweet spin on the Shakespeare
inspired story of Romeo and Juliet, but with two clans of gnomes at war
with the main destruction being to each other's gardens. Two star-crossed
lovers, Gnomeo & Juliet fall in love and after all the chaos, hate, and
near death experiences, both "gnomes houses" seek a truce and learn to
co-exist.
In the sequel, the gnomes move to London. Juliet (Emily Blunt) is so
preoccupied with rebuilding the garden, she fails to notice Gnomeo's (James
MacAvoy) needs and feelings. In other parts of London, Sherlock Gnomes
(Johnny Depp) and his faithful companion Watson (Chiwetel Eljiofor) are
investigating the disappearance of several gnomes throughout London. One
day, Gnomeo attempts at a romantic gesture goes awry when he tries to steal
an orchid for Juliet from a flower shop. Juliet ends up saving Gnomeo,
causing them to bicker and squabble and not realize all their gnome friends
and family were kidnapped. One thing leads to another and they find
themselves teaming up with Sherlock and Watson to track down all the clues
in hopes of saving their loved ones.
From the director who brought us "Kung Fu Panda," this was a major misstep
for John Stevenson. The movie was fast paced, but the story line was very
disjointed. I understand what angle they were attempting to hit here:
Don't take your loved ones for granted, but I just could not connect with
the characters. In the first film, they really focused on the
relationships between Gnomeo and his mother, Juliet and her father, and both
Gnomeo and Juliet. Those relationships were lost in this film. From the
adult perspective, the movie lacked depth, but was still entertaining.
However, the kiddos on hand loved it. They enjoyed all the high flying
suspenseful moments, the potty humor, and over the top one liners.
inspired story of Romeo and Juliet, but with two clans of gnomes at war
with the main destruction being to each other's gardens. Two star-crossed
lovers, Gnomeo & Juliet fall in love and after all the chaos, hate, and
near death experiences, both "gnomes houses" seek a truce and learn to
co-exist.
In the sequel, the gnomes move to London. Juliet (Emily Blunt) is so
preoccupied with rebuilding the garden, she fails to notice Gnomeo's (James
MacAvoy) needs and feelings. In other parts of London, Sherlock Gnomes
(Johnny Depp) and his faithful companion Watson (Chiwetel Eljiofor) are
investigating the disappearance of several gnomes throughout London. One
day, Gnomeo attempts at a romantic gesture goes awry when he tries to steal
an orchid for Juliet from a flower shop. Juliet ends up saving Gnomeo,
causing them to bicker and squabble and not realize all their gnome friends
and family were kidnapped. One thing leads to another and they find
themselves teaming up with Sherlock and Watson to track down all the clues
in hopes of saving their loved ones.
From the director who brought us "Kung Fu Panda," this was a major misstep
for John Stevenson. The movie was fast paced, but the story line was very
disjointed. I understand what angle they were attempting to hit here:
Don't take your loved ones for granted, but I just could not connect with
the characters. In the first film, they really focused on the
relationships between Gnomeo and his mother, Juliet and her father, and both
Gnomeo and Juliet. Those relationships were lost in this film. From the
adult perspective, the movie lacked depth, but was still entertaining.
However, the kiddos on hand loved it. They enjoyed all the high flying
suspenseful moments, the potty humor, and over the top one liners.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jul 24, 2017
The limited cast is great (1 more)
The sound design is amazing
Expect the Unexpected
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember when the first Cloverfield movie was released, it was made in secret and after the trailer dropped people were really hyped. Then the movie came out and it was okay, but nowhere near as good as the trailer and most people quickly forgot about it and it has kind of faded into obscurity since then, remembered only as an interesting experiment that never really lived up to its full potential. So when a follow up movie set in the same universe was announced at the start of this year, you can imagine the surprise of movie fans. Again this movie was made in secret, not an easy thing to do in this day and age and although it shared a name with the first movie, this isn’t necessarily a sequel or a prequel. This review will contain a spoiler free section then a section where I will spoil the hell out of everything in the movie, but don’t worry I’ll give you fair warning before I do that.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
This movie is an example of why sometimes it is better to have a small, focused team of people working on a restrictive budget towards a collective aim and end product, because what we end up with is a concentrated, purposeful film, in which each aspect has been handled with care. First off, this movie has three characters and that’s it, so the performances have to be nothing less than stellar for the piece to work. Luckily they are here. Mary Elizabeth Winstead plays a young girl called Michelle who has just left her man, however it is when she is driving away that she has a car accident and wakes up in the basement of Howard’s Doomsday bunker, the character played by John Goodman. As the film’s traumatising event unfold, she shows resilience, persistence, tenacity and resourcefulness and she pulls it off in a believable way. John Gallagher Jr plays a man called Emmet who has known John Goodman’s character from before the events of the movie play out. He is the comic relief of the movie, but his character is just as important as the other two and he delivers a spot on performance. However John Goodman’s performance in this film is of a different class, he runs away with the movie and steals every scene he is in. This film is a great reminder of why he is considered one of the great character actors of our time. it is very rare that I will say that an actor is perfect in a role, to be a perfect performance, the character must have no lines or scenes that I dislike, steal every scene that they are in and make me totally forget about the actor playing the part and only see the character that they are portraying. The last person to successfully pull it off was JK Simmons in Whiplash, that is the level of quality that we are talking about here, definitely Goodman’s best performance of the last decade.
The other star of this film is the audio, both the score used and the sound effects are so well timed and effective. The various tracks played throughout mixed with the straight up terrifying noises of simple things in the environment, especially the door of Michelle’s room, which honestly sounds like a woman screaming every time it is opened or closed. Also, I don’t know if John Goodman’s breathing was amplified in any way, but it is terrifying. The editing in this movie is also fantastic, best executed during Michelle’s crash at the start of the movie, the abrupt nature of the scenes and sound effects instantly let you know what kind of ride you are in for, for the next 90 minutes.
Okay, from this point on major plot points and twists will be spoiled, you have been warned.
As the film progresses, we learn that Howard had a daughter called Megan, but Emmet and Michelle suspect that he may have killed his daughter or at least some other young girls, so they hatch a plan to break out. Howard finds evidence of the plan and confronts the pair, Emmett takes the blame and what is one of the most shocking scenes I have seen in cinema, Howard shoots him point blank in the head with a thunderous gunshot. After this, Michelle realises he really is crazy and she has to get out, but he also catches her with evidence of the escape plan and chases her around the bunker. Michelle then kicks acid over him and makes for the exit hatch in a terrifying chase sequence. After she gets out the bunker explodes, but she soon realises she isn’t in the clear yet. A dog like monster chases her around the garden which she runs from, then a large alien ship lifts her up, but just as it is about to devour her, she makes a Molotov cocktail and throws it into the mouth of the beast blowing it up, she then drives away and the movie ends. People have a problem with the end of this movie after Michelle leaves the bunker, but although I will say that the first half is definitely superior, I still enjoyed the ending and overall this is probably my favourite movie of 2016 so far.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
May 3, 2019
A bleak and violent sci-fi
I wanted to see this film when it first came out, and was so annoyed it didnt get a UK release. At the time I managed to find a copy to watch, but havent seen it again until now.
To start with this has a fantastic cast. Whilst I struggle to forget Captain America every time I see Chris Evans, I do think he's a good actor and he's brilliant supported by the likes of John Hurt and Octavia Spencer. Jamie Bell is a great actor too and I think he's rather underrated. And Tilda Swinton simply steals the show as Mason. You hate her yet love her at the same time as she's absolutely hilarious. In part due to the genius idea to give her a Yorkshire accent, as this makes it even more surreal and funny.
The story itself is an interesting one and I was intrigued by the whole thing, I felt invested in the characters as they traversed along the train. And this plot plays out in a very bleak and violent manner. The action scenes are great and wonderfully brutal, and there is some very bleak and dark outcomes and conversations towards the end of the film that make this not your typical run of the mill sci-fi.
I do think there are some parts of this film that aren't great, namely some strange seemingly plot holes to do with character backstories. They're not the end of the world, but still a tad annoying. Also I'm not sure if this is just the Netflix version, but when the Korean characters were speaking there were no subtitles. Fine for minor scenes, but there is a least one major scene where the lack of subtitles is a huge detriment. I'm assuming/hoping the film hasn't been made that way, so I'll blame Netflix!
This is not your average happy sci-fi. However if you dont mind watching something with dark and bleak overtones and a decent amount of violence, this is definitely worth a watch.
To start with this has a fantastic cast. Whilst I struggle to forget Captain America every time I see Chris Evans, I do think he's a good actor and he's brilliant supported by the likes of John Hurt and Octavia Spencer. Jamie Bell is a great actor too and I think he's rather underrated. And Tilda Swinton simply steals the show as Mason. You hate her yet love her at the same time as she's absolutely hilarious. In part due to the genius idea to give her a Yorkshire accent, as this makes it even more surreal and funny.
The story itself is an interesting one and I was intrigued by the whole thing, I felt invested in the characters as they traversed along the train. And this plot plays out in a very bleak and violent manner. The action scenes are great and wonderfully brutal, and there is some very bleak and dark outcomes and conversations towards the end of the film that make this not your typical run of the mill sci-fi.
I do think there are some parts of this film that aren't great, namely some strange seemingly plot holes to do with character backstories. They're not the end of the world, but still a tad annoying. Also I'm not sure if this is just the Netflix version, but when the Korean characters were speaking there were no subtitles. Fine for minor scenes, but there is a least one major scene where the lack of subtitles is a huge detriment. I'm assuming/hoping the film hasn't been made that way, so I'll blame Netflix!
This is not your average happy sci-fi. However if you dont mind watching something with dark and bleak overtones and a decent amount of violence, this is definitely worth a watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Exodus: Gods and Kings is a new movie directed by Ridley Scott.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
With other great films under his belt such as Alien, Gladiator, GI Jane, and many many more, I had high hopes for this film.
The cast includes Christian Bale as Moses, Ben Kingsley as Nun, Joel Edgerton as Ramses, John Turturro as Seti, Sigourney Weaver as Tuya, and Aaron Paul as Joshua.
At 2 hours and 22 minutes long, I actually FELT the movie dragging in places, and yet I was less than thrilled with the ending.
The 3D didn’t add anything to the movie. During scenes where the 3D should have been a major asset to the film, enhancing the viewing experience, and drawing the audience into the story, it really didn’t add anything to the story, nor did it seem to add any “wow factor”.
Being completely non-religious myself, I cannot speak to many of the other seemingly negative comments regarding the films lack of “following the true story”, but I can say that the story presented was rather…. Lackluster.
In previews it seemed as if the whole movie would be set on a grand grand scale, and that it was worth paying to see on the big screen.
In actuality, while the movie does seem to be set on a grand scale, it just didn’t grab me in enough, didn’t capture my feelings and make me root for one side or the other, didn’t make me CARE enough about the characters or the story to want to bother to see it again, on the big screen or even on the tv.
I wouldn’t go so far as to call it “horrible”‘ or even “bad”, but I couldn’t tell someone “this is a movie you simply MUST SEE on the big screen”, either.
If I’d have paid to see it, I’d have been annoyed.
The best summation that I might be able to give this movie is…. “Meh”.
I’d give this movie a reluctant 2 out of 5 stars, and only as many as 2 to give Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Amistad (1997) in Movies
Aug 13, 2020
Give Us Us Free
Slaves are put on trial when they start a mutiny on the ship bringing them over to America. Although a little long in the tooth, Amistad is a memorable movie that gives you something to root for.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Acting: 10
This was the first time I got to see a performance from Djimon Hounsou. I was blown away by his tenacity. You felt his passion in every single line he utters. This movie wouldn’t have been the same without him. I would argue the same for Anthony Hopkins playing the role of John Quincy Adams. Hopkins is no secret to blockbuster performances so it’s no surprise that he knocks this one out of the park.
Beginning: 10
This is how you start a movie! For me, it has one of the top ten beginning of all time for any movie. It’s riveting and terrifying at the same time. The way Spielberg shot it was genius.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
No surprise here with one of the most iconic directors of all time at the helm. He always has a way of choosing the best angle for the greatest impact. I could spend a whole entry talking about the subtle things he does to leave large impacts. It’s a cinematic treat.
Conflict: 7
The struggle here is the movie mostly revolves around two major cases. The courtroom can be boring in spots on the big screen if not done right. Even in the case of Amistad where things are done right, it can still be a bit much to consume. You feel like nothing is happening when actually there is a whole lot happening at once.
Entertainment Value: 8
I was intrigued to see how this story would unfold from beginning to end. I loved the character development and the understanding of what got both sides to their respective points. Again, despite its length, you will be engaged throughout.
Memorability: 6
Pace: 1
Plot: 10
Resolution: 9
Overall: 81
Improve the pacing here and you have a masterpiece point blank. Despite its length, Amistad is definitely worth the time spent. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated Road House (1989) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Very underrated
Contains spoilers, click to show
So what kind of film do you get when you have great one liners, bar fights, guns, knives, egos, strippers, blues music, a polar bear and a monster truck? You get one of the most enjoyable and entertaining films of the late 80's, Road House. The film follows James Dalton (Patrick Swayze) a cooler (bouncer) and the best in the business, as he takes employment with Frank Tilghman (Kevin Tighe) the owner of the Double Deuce in Jasper, Missouri. The bar is the roughest in town and he needs Dalton to clean it up. However corrupt business man and crime boss Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara) stands in his way. After the classic "chick flick" Dirty Dancing, Patrick Swayze was Hollywood gold. Women loved him and men wanted to be him. The film was full of romance. Then along came Road House, a complete opposite to Dirty Dancing, a little romance and loads of action. The film has a great cast including Patrick Swayze, Kevin Tighe, Ben Gazzara, Kelly Lynch, Marshall R. Teague, Red West, Kathleen Wilhoite, John William Young, John Doe, Kurt James Stefka, Keith David & Terry Funk. The cast works well together and it is full of great performances. Naturally Patrick Swayze at the height of his career stands miles apart from the rest of the cast as Dalton. A character that can hurt you with his words just as much as his fists. Tragically, 20 years later Swayze had his life cut short by cancer. His death is still a major loss to the entertainment industry, but his legacy will live on in the great performances and memorable characters he played. The film also a features a great performance by the late great blues guitarist Jeff Healey as Cody. It's the music in the film that goes a long way to achieving the right feel for the film. Everything works well from the characters, the music to the setting. Set in a rural area the scenery is breath-taking and it is used to great effect. But it's the fight choreography that stands out from many other films. Great bar fights are pretty much a thing of the past, but here they are full of action and humour just like the classic westerns. The one on one fights are brutal, mainly for the realism they portray. The script is awesome and full of classic lines mainly from Dalton and although many are cheesy, when he says it, it feels right. The director surprisingly hasn't made many films but the ones I have seen of his I really like and I know I am in the minority. See my review of Gladiator (1992) for more by this director. This is truly a great film, although very underrated. It is also one of my personal all-time favourites. There are a couple of versions of this so ensure that you see the USA or UK version released after 2002 as these are the uncut editions. So grab a few beers and a few friends, but this on a big screen and turn the sound way up for a really great movie experience.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Camino Island in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Princeton University houses five valuable manuscripts--all the originals of F. Scott Fitzgerald's novels. They are housed in the basement under a veil of security, but not enough to stop a band of clever thieves from breaking in and stealing them. This sets loose a chain of events and angers both the FBI, who is trying to track down the criminals, and the insurance company, as they are on the hook for $25 million unless the manuscripts are returned. Meanwhile, on touristy Camino Island, Bruce Cable runs a popular bookstore/coffee shop. Thanks to a lot of persistence and hard work, he's managed to keep it profitable even in the digital age. He's also a major backer of the many authors who come through his town on book tours. But few of those authors, or Bruce's patrons, know that Bruce keeps a vault in his shop housing a variety of rare books and manuscripts--some stolen. Finally, we turn to Mercer Mann--Mercer's just lost her teaching position, and she's three years overdue on delivering her next book to her publisher. She's also drowning in student loans. Mercer's approached by a beautiful and elegant woman who offers her a lot of money to get close to Bruce Cable and learn all about his web of secrets. Trouble, as you may guess, ensues.
I have a soft spot for Grisham, that's for sure. I fell in love with his first novels as a young teen, and I still love Darby Shaw, Gray Grantham, Mark Sway, Reverend Roy, and Reggie Love as if they were real people. Grisham and his family have a home in my town, and we claim him as one of our own. His books are often an easy escape, and CAMINO ISLAND falls into that category. Is it as memorable as [b:The Pelican Brief|32499|The Pelican Brief|John Grisham|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1389486877s/32499.jpg|490324] or [b:The Client|5359|The Client|John Grisham|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388632222s/5359.jpg|137715]? No. Is it a fun diversion for a few days? Sure.
CAMINO ISLAND is a change from most of Grisham's legal thrillers--there are no lawyers or court room scenes here, just some tricky criminals, a heist, and the aftermath. You'll need to keep track of the various bad guys in the beginning, but once you get past that, it's an easy breezy read--much like the Florida setting where most of the novel is set. Mercer's a pleasant, albeit not very complicated protagonist, and Bruce Cable is a trip. It's also a detailed exploration into the world of rare books--something I knew little to nothing about.
Overall, this is fun, easy thriller. There are a few twists and turns along the way to keep you interested, and Grisham's characters are always enjoyable. The ending wraps up fairly quickly after all the build-up, so be prepared for that. Is it Grisham's best? No. But it will keep you entertained for a couple of days. 3.5 stars.
You can read my reviews of Grisham's novels GRAY MOUNTAIN <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20707959-gray-mountain">here</a>; and ROGUE LAWYER <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25387351-rogue-lawyer">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
I have a soft spot for Grisham, that's for sure. I fell in love with his first novels as a young teen, and I still love Darby Shaw, Gray Grantham, Mark Sway, Reverend Roy, and Reggie Love as if they were real people. Grisham and his family have a home in my town, and we claim him as one of our own. His books are often an easy escape, and CAMINO ISLAND falls into that category. Is it as memorable as [b:The Pelican Brief|32499|The Pelican Brief|John Grisham|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1389486877s/32499.jpg|490324] or [b:The Client|5359|The Client|John Grisham|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1388632222s/5359.jpg|137715]? No. Is it a fun diversion for a few days? Sure.
CAMINO ISLAND is a change from most of Grisham's legal thrillers--there are no lawyers or court room scenes here, just some tricky criminals, a heist, and the aftermath. You'll need to keep track of the various bad guys in the beginning, but once you get past that, it's an easy breezy read--much like the Florida setting where most of the novel is set. Mercer's a pleasant, albeit not very complicated protagonist, and Bruce Cable is a trip. It's also a detailed exploration into the world of rare books--something I knew little to nothing about.
Overall, this is fun, easy thriller. There are a few twists and turns along the way to keep you interested, and Grisham's characters are always enjoyable. The ending wraps up fairly quickly after all the build-up, so be prepared for that. Is it Grisham's best? No. But it will keep you entertained for a couple of days. 3.5 stars.
You can read my reviews of Grisham's novels GRAY MOUNTAIN <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/20707959-gray-mountain">here</a>; and ROGUE LAWYER <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25387351-rogue-lawyer">here</a>;.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.instagram.com/justacatandabook/">Instagram</a>; </center>
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated Red Sky in Morning in Books
Nov 5, 2018
Check out the review on my blog, Lily Loves Indie, here http://lilylovesindie.co.uk/?p=27
I received this book through NetGalley in return for an honest review, and that I am very grateful for this opportunity to broaden my reading experience. This is a very different book to what I would usually read, with a different style of writing and plot development. Nevertheless, I did find it somewhat enjoyable, even if it was lacking in a couple of places.
The story follows the harsh life of Coll Coyle, a young Irish man struggling to keep his home for his family from a vile landlord. It seems things can only get worse as the saga progresses, with John Faller, a formidable gentleman, following him all the way around the world. Although he meets a good friend, his heart never truly leaves the loved ones left behind in Ireland.
Initially, this story is rather tough to get into, and that isn't something that changes much over the course of the book. Written in a strong Irish brogue, at times it can be quite difficult to read, however this becomes easier as you go further through the book. It does help you feel more immersed in the story though as it strangely flows quite naturally when you're reading.
The plot is something that, if I'm totally honest, needs a little work. It's just rather plodding and slow at times, and even after finishing it, I don't feel like the story really went anywhere and was never aiming for a conclusion. In addition, at times it was very depressing to read, and I had to put it down in favour of something a little more light-hearted.
All that as it was, there is one major redeeming feature in this book that had me reading to the end. The imagery is truly exquisite - Lynch really does have great skill at weaving the description through the story. This was a delight to read as the images just appeared with minimal effort from myself straight into my head.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, but it probably wouldn't be one I'd read over and over again. The description is by far it's greatest feature but it is, on the whole, something I'm glad I've read.
I received this book through NetGalley in return for an honest review, and that I am very grateful for this opportunity to broaden my reading experience. This is a very different book to what I would usually read, with a different style of writing and plot development. Nevertheless, I did find it somewhat enjoyable, even if it was lacking in a couple of places.
The story follows the harsh life of Coll Coyle, a young Irish man struggling to keep his home for his family from a vile landlord. It seems things can only get worse as the saga progresses, with John Faller, a formidable gentleman, following him all the way around the world. Although he meets a good friend, his heart never truly leaves the loved ones left behind in Ireland.
Initially, this story is rather tough to get into, and that isn't something that changes much over the course of the book. Written in a strong Irish brogue, at times it can be quite difficult to read, however this becomes easier as you go further through the book. It does help you feel more immersed in the story though as it strangely flows quite naturally when you're reading.
The plot is something that, if I'm totally honest, needs a little work. It's just rather plodding and slow at times, and even after finishing it, I don't feel like the story really went anywhere and was never aiming for a conclusion. In addition, at times it was very depressing to read, and I had to put it down in favour of something a little more light-hearted.
All that as it was, there is one major redeeming feature in this book that had me reading to the end. The imagery is truly exquisite - Lynch really does have great skill at weaving the description through the story. This was a delight to read as the images just appeared with minimal effort from myself straight into my head.
Overall, I enjoyed this book, but it probably wouldn't be one I'd read over and over again. The description is by far it's greatest feature but it is, on the whole, something I'm glad I've read.