Search
Search results
Merissa (11619 KP) rated Phoenix Freed (Phoenix #3) in Books
May 8, 2023
This is the bittersweet ending to the Phoenix trilogy. We meet Daughtry and Cody as they are sickeningly (according to un-bonded people) in love, together on a soul level that can't be comprehended by someone not yet bonded. It is a time of quiet, but Daughtry can't relax as she feels like there is still something to come.
Something does come... in the shape of her sister, Alex. To begin with, Daughtry can't remember her, but as she gets memory flashbacks, she understands more and wraps Alex into her life. Alex has had it tough, but she is a survivor. She is also a fantastic character! Yes, she gets hurt by comments and/or actions, but she doesn't just fly off the deep end either. She takes a breath and tries to figure out if her hurt feelings were intentional or not. I loved that!
Along with the story continuing for Daughtry and Cody, we also have stories involving the Dalshie, Alex, John, and Tyler.
WOW, just wow! Phoenix Freed is incredibly well-written, with no editing or grammatical errors that could distract me. The story flows, the tension builds, there is happiness, there is sadness, and there is horror where your breath catches in your throat.
Although this is the end of this series, I am seriously hoping for some more in the LexTal Chronicles to go alongside Mason and Gabby's story. I don't think I'm quite ready to leave their world yet! Highly recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
July 5, 2016
Something does come... in the shape of her sister, Alex. To begin with, Daughtry can't remember her, but as she gets memory flashbacks, she understands more and wraps Alex into her life. Alex has had it tough, but she is a survivor. She is also a fantastic character! Yes, she gets hurt by comments and/or actions, but she doesn't just fly off the deep end either. She takes a breath and tries to figure out if her hurt feelings were intentional or not. I loved that!
Along with the story continuing for Daughtry and Cody, we also have stories involving the Dalshie, Alex, John, and Tyler.
WOW, just wow! Phoenix Freed is incredibly well-written, with no editing or grammatical errors that could distract me. The story flows, the tension builds, there is happiness, there is sadness, and there is horror where your breath catches in your throat.
Although this is the end of this series, I am seriously hoping for some more in the LexTal Chronicles to go alongside Mason and Gabby's story. I don't think I'm quite ready to leave their world yet! Highly recommended by me.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
July 5, 2016
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Super (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I first heard about Super, written and directed by James Gunn, my first thought was “Dwight (from The Office) will be a superhero?” However what I saw on the screen was anything but Dwight, it was 75% awesome and 25% “I can’t believe they did that!”
The film begins with Frank (excellently played by Rainn Wilson) happily married to Sarah (Liv Tyler) who is a recovering drug addict. The happiness is shattered when Sarah begins using again, thanks to Jacques the drug dealer (Kevin Bacon) and then one day she disappears. Frank searches for Sarah and eventually finds her under the control of Jacques. Unable to get her away from Jacques, Frank goes to the police for help. Unfortunately because Sarah left on her own accord, no law has been broken (except for the drug stuff) so they are unable to help him.
Frank tries to move on, but without Sarah life seems meaningless. Then in his darkest hour he has a vision of The Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion). Heeding the vision, Frank becomes The Crimson Bolt, pledges to fight crime and to save Sarah. There is just one small problem – Frank has no idea how to be a superhero. Research is needed, so off to the comic book store he goes, of course, and there he meets Libby (Ellen Page). Libby advises him which comics to read that have superheroes who do not have powers. Armed with this knowledge, The Crimson Bolt officially begins fighting crime in the most unusual of ways and not too long after, Libby becomes Boltie, his trusted, sexy sidekick.
This very entertaining, action-filled, dark comedy has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, and it will keep you glued to the screen until the end. Will they save the city from villainy? Will they save Sarah’s bacon? (Sorry, with Kevin Bacon playing the bad guy I couldn’t resist.)
Super has a different take on the superhero genre than what I’ve seen in past movies. Only Rainn Wilson could have properly portrayed the uniqueness that is Frank/Crimson Bolt and the same goes for Ellen Page in regards to Libby/Boltie (possibly the best sidekick ever). To make a long review short, let me sum up this way, everyone in the movie no matter the length of their part did an amazing job in their role. With that said, my only wish was that the story would have allowed for more screen time for Gregg Henry (Detective John Felkner) and a musical number for Fillion’s Holy Avenger. if you liked Fillion as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog, then you’ll love him in this role. But those things would have most likely thrown off the perfect balance of action, humor and character interaction that made this movie so enjoyable.
The film begins with Frank (excellently played by Rainn Wilson) happily married to Sarah (Liv Tyler) who is a recovering drug addict. The happiness is shattered when Sarah begins using again, thanks to Jacques the drug dealer (Kevin Bacon) and then one day she disappears. Frank searches for Sarah and eventually finds her under the control of Jacques. Unable to get her away from Jacques, Frank goes to the police for help. Unfortunately because Sarah left on her own accord, no law has been broken (except for the drug stuff) so they are unable to help him.
Frank tries to move on, but without Sarah life seems meaningless. Then in his darkest hour he has a vision of The Holy Avenger (Nathan Fillion). Heeding the vision, Frank becomes The Crimson Bolt, pledges to fight crime and to save Sarah. There is just one small problem – Frank has no idea how to be a superhero. Research is needed, so off to the comic book store he goes, of course, and there he meets Libby (Ellen Page). Libby advises him which comics to read that have superheroes who do not have powers. Armed with this knowledge, The Crimson Bolt officially begins fighting crime in the most unusual of ways and not too long after, Libby becomes Boltie, his trusted, sexy sidekick.
This very entertaining, action-filled, dark comedy has more twists and turns than a game of Chutes and Ladders, and it will keep you glued to the screen until the end. Will they save the city from villainy? Will they save Sarah’s bacon? (Sorry, with Kevin Bacon playing the bad guy I couldn’t resist.)
Super has a different take on the superhero genre than what I’ve seen in past movies. Only Rainn Wilson could have properly portrayed the uniqueness that is Frank/Crimson Bolt and the same goes for Ellen Page in regards to Libby/Boltie (possibly the best sidekick ever). To make a long review short, let me sum up this way, everyone in the movie no matter the length of their part did an amazing job in their role. With that said, my only wish was that the story would have allowed for more screen time for Gregg Henry (Detective John Felkner) and a musical number for Fillion’s Holy Avenger. if you liked Fillion as Captain Hammer in Dr. Horrible’s Singalong Blog, then you’ll love him in this role. But those things would have most likely thrown off the perfect balance of action, humor and character interaction that made this movie so enjoyable.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Battlefield Earth (2000) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
Ight Imma Head Out
When an alien species takes over Earth, the humans finally decide to rise up and fight back. Watching Battlefield Earth is like taking a shit that just doesn’t want to come out. It’s frustrating, it’s messy, and it only serves to screw up your day. In fact, this movie is so painful that I am forcing myself to watch it until I finish this review. Man, you should see how fast I’m typing right now.
Acting: 3
Less than two minutes in, the movie has one of those bloodcurdling “NO!” screams after main character Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper) finds out someone close to him has died. That’s when I remember saying to myself: “What the hell did I just get myself into? I gotta sit through the rest of this?” You would think, “Well, it’s only uphill from here.” You, madam or sir, would be wrong. From John Travolta and Forest Whitaker’s painful performances as aliens to the rest of this horrid cast, I can’t really decide who did the worst job. I gave them a 3 because, well, I’m assuming they showed up on set everyday.
Beginning: 0
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Fast forward to four minutes after the “scream”. You see a bunch of cavemen (ish) beating up a prop from a broken down minigolf fun center. You see this happening with weird cut shots and slow motion, all while focusing on the anger and intent of the cavemen who see it as a threat. It is quite possibly one of the dumbest scenes I have seen in film. It angers me even now just thinking about it.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 0
Memorability: 0
The only thing I need to remember is this movie is garbage and to run if someone ever mentions watching it. There is nothing about this movie I will ever treasure.
Pace: 2
Let me watch paint dry and see if I’m not more entertained. My wife captured a caterpillar in a jar recently because she thinks it may become a butterfly. I’m pretty sure it’s dying because it only moves an inch every few hours. That inch outpaces the speed at which this movie drags along. Give me the DMV. Give me the longest wait at any Disneyworld ride. Give me the lines for the 2008 voting stations. I will take any of these things over Battlefield Earth.
Plot: 0
Resolution: 1
Ended just like it began: As a failed movie with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Overall: 17
I usually don’t judge people on tastes. We’re all different and we all like different things. But if you enjoyed this movie in any shape or fashion and you profess to be my friend, please lose my number. The passion with which I hate this movie has no end.
Acting: 3
Less than two minutes in, the movie has one of those bloodcurdling “NO!” screams after main character Jonnie Goodboy Tyler (Barry Pepper) finds out someone close to him has died. That’s when I remember saying to myself: “What the hell did I just get myself into? I gotta sit through the rest of this?” You would think, “Well, it’s only uphill from here.” You, madam or sir, would be wrong. From John Travolta and Forest Whitaker’s painful performances as aliens to the rest of this horrid cast, I can’t really decide who did the worst job. I gave them a 3 because, well, I’m assuming they showed up on set everyday.
Beginning: 0
Cinematography/Visuals: 3
Fast forward to four minutes after the “scream”. You see a bunch of cavemen (ish) beating up a prop from a broken down minigolf fun center. You see this happening with weird cut shots and slow motion, all while focusing on the anger and intent of the cavemen who see it as a threat. It is quite possibly one of the dumbest scenes I have seen in film. It angers me even now just thinking about it.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 0
Memorability: 0
The only thing I need to remember is this movie is garbage and to run if someone ever mentions watching it. There is nothing about this movie I will ever treasure.
Pace: 2
Let me watch paint dry and see if I’m not more entertained. My wife captured a caterpillar in a jar recently because she thinks it may become a butterfly. I’m pretty sure it’s dying because it only moves an inch every few hours. That inch outpaces the speed at which this movie drags along. Give me the DMV. Give me the longest wait at any Disneyworld ride. Give me the lines for the 2008 voting stations. I will take any of these things over Battlefield Earth.
Plot: 0
Resolution: 1
Ended just like it began: As a failed movie with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
Overall: 17
I usually don’t judge people on tastes. We’re all different and we all like different things. But if you enjoyed this movie in any shape or fashion and you profess to be my friend, please lose my number. The passion with which I hate this movie has no end.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown (2015) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown starts as Burke (Cross) and his fellow officers learning of an incriminating set of photos of his men’s corruption. We move on to meet Burke’s former partner John Shaw (Ambrose) who is returning to work after being shot in the line of duty. It isn’t too long before we see the clash between Burke and Shaw which leads to Shaw investigating the bust.
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
When Shaw uncovers the truth he finds himself being hunted in the precinct by Burke and his men Gideon (Cudmore), Darrow (Munro) Harris (Olsson), Meeks (Levins) and Saul (Morrow). Shaw finds himself locked in the station with only the rookie Jenny Taylor (Smyth) not hunting him down like Burke’s men.
12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is an action film that does everything you need it to without making anything over complicated. We have the one man taking on the villains in a building with no escape to expose the truth. What more do you need in an action film. Saying that we have one final twist that comes off very cheap and forced. This is something that is easy to watch which will work for casual viewing.
Actor Review
Dean Ambrose: John Shaw is the honest cop that has just returned to work after being injured in the line of duty. He uncovers that his former partner has been Burke and his men have become corrupt. He has to survive a lockdown being hunted down by all of the men and being framed for everything to get the truth out. Dean is very good in this role with a potentially new action star.
Roger Cross: Tyler Burke is the former partner of Shaw but they have gone their separate ways with Burke entering into the world of corruption but when he is about to get busted he will kill anyone that gets in his way including Shaw who is the only man stopping his team from being exposed. Roger makes for a good leading villain role.
Daniel Cudmore: Gideon is one of the men working with Burke, he is the psychical presence that Shaw must overcome in the traditional big guy little guy fight in an action movie. Daniel is good for what he needs to be in this film without standing out any more than the rest of the bad guys.
Lochlyn Munro: Darrow is the tech guy on Burke’s team he does everything to make sure that Shaw can’t communicate or escape with the outside world. Lochlyn does well in this role which again is just like the rest of the bad guys.
Support Cast: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has a very simple used of supporting cast with most of them being the people trying to kill Shaw with the rest outside working out what to do.
Director Review: Stephen Reynolds – Stephen gives us an action film that is an easy watch as well as being non-stop.
Action: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has plenty of action going on from start to finish with the nothing being too over the top but never seems to stop.
Crime: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown has all the criminals being police which is a nice take on the crime side of the story.
Thriller: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown doesn’t stop which is always a good thing in an action film.
Settings: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown keeps nearly all of the film inside the police station which helps keep the action in a small space.
Special Effects: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown uses the special effects well without having to use them too often.
Suggestion: 12 Rounds 3: Lockdown is one for the action fans out there to enjoy, it is an easy watch. (Action Fans Watch)
Best Part: Ambrose is great with no previous experience.
Worst Part: Final Twist.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: Maybe
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 30 Minutes
Trivia: Due to being in WWE where they perform in front of a live audience on live television, Dean Ambrose was used to reading his lines in one try and got aggravated when other actors forgot their lines.
Overall: Enjoyable action film that is easy to watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/04/04/12-rounds-3-lockdown-2015/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Extraction (2020) in Movies
May 6, 2020
Fun, by-the-book, action flick
I'm pretty sure that no matter what, I was going to enjoy the Chris Hemsworth action flick EXTRACTION whether it was good or not. It is, after all, a NEW movie, albeit one that was made "Direct to Netflix", so those can be of lesser quality.
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I'm happy to report that in the case of EXTRACTION, that is not the case. This is a good (if by the books) popcorn action flick with a charismatic lead keeping you company throughout.
In EXTRACTION, Chris Hemsworth stars as an Australian Mercenary (who knew there was such a thing), hired to extract the kidnapped son of a drug lord from the hands of his fiercest rival.
This is a pretty "by-the-numbers" action film:
1). The mercenary has "baggage" - will the events (and the subject he is to extract) help him come to terms with his pent-up emotions in order to move past his traumatic "baggage"?
2). Will there be some sort of "double-cross" that screws up the extraction causing our hero to go "on the run" with his "Extraction"?
3). Will there be a buddy that our hero trusts who will, ultimately, double-cross him?
What do you think?
The fun of this film was not the plot machinations (they are pretty basic), but the execution of these machinations - and this execution is pretty fun/enjoyable.
Start with Chris Hemsworth as our mercenary - with the great action flick name of Tyler Rake. Hemsworth knows exactly what kind of film he is in - and he brings the goods. If he chose to, I think Hemsworth could be an action hero staple like Jason Statham or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson - but I think Hemsworth is not really interested in that. But here, he is steely eyed and calm taking hits and doling out punishment to hoards of "red shirt" bad guys in his way. He has the action hero chops. He also has the acting chops to make the overwrought "emotional" scenes palatable. He makes weak writing enjoyable.
Joining him is Rudhraksh Jaiswal as "the extraction" - and his interactions with Hemsworth are fun. Randeep Hodha and Golshifteh Farahani do a nice job in the roles that they play in the action and the always watchable David Harbour eats a ton of scenery in his limited time on the screen. All are fun to watch.
But it is the telling of the story by first time Director Sam Hargrave that was a (pleasant) surprise for me. After doubling Chris Evans in the first CAPTAIN AMERICA film, Hargrave became the "go to" guy for Marvel action choreography, so (I'm sure) he got to know Hemsworth there. He brings a fast-paced style to this film that works. He doesn't stop to examine much at all (which helps the plot holes in the script) and his action work with his stunt actors is top-notch. If you watch nothing else in this film, check out the chase scene at about the 1/3 mark of the film. Hemsworth and "the extraction" are being chased - and it is filmed in the "shaky cam/cinema veritae/ make it look like one long tracking shot" style that I often criticize in my reviews - but here it worked and worked well. I'll be keeping my eye on what Hargrave does next (word is it that there will be an Extraction 2).
All of this is brought together by Producers Joe and Anthony Russo - the Directors of many Marvel films (including INFINITY WAR and ENDGAME). Not only did they Produce this film, but they wrote the story from where this film came from. It's obvious that they turned the majority of the screenplay writing to others (most notably Ande Parks) and this film is based on a graphic novel...so it plays like an over-the-top comic book action flick (think John Wick-lite) where the dialogue is sparse and cliche-ridden. This part of the film was far less interesting than the action parts.
But, the action is fast, fun and furious and Hemsworth is worth watching for the 1 hour 56 minute running time.
All-in-all, a good time was had while watching the first "new" film in over 6 weeks.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.