Search
Search results
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Inside Man: Most Wanted (2019) in Movies
Mar 20, 2021
I was drawn to this one after an ultimatum from Now TV that it was only going to be available for one more day. This after having it in my watchlist for a rather long time. I had some slight dread for this lengthy weight for a sequel.
NYPD and the FBI handle a hostage negotiation at the US Federal Reserve. With civilians and one of their own inside they must draw on all their knowledge to try and resolve the situation without letting their egos and knowledge of the past cloud their judgement.
There's nothing like having to follow a popular film, and I'm not sure there would be many sequels that I would praise over its predecessor. Thankfully that isn't a point I need to ponder on for too long here.
At some point while watching I just stopped taking notes, for me that's either a very good sign or a very bad one... I think from the score you can probably tell which.
Inside Man: Most Wanted seems fully aware that it isn't Inside Man, and that there wasn't really a genuinely original storyline insight. There are a lot of callbacks to the first film that seem rather hammy and shoehorned in, but I'll elaborate on that later.
There weren't any actors that I recognised, though the top three have been in several things I'm aware of. I'm not going to dwell on the acting because I really found it just to be fine. I didn't see anything that made me want to call it out as good, and similarly there was nothing terrible. It was all... fine.
And in fact, that's my feeling for the whole film... and I apologise, because I've just realised that I do not have anything at all that I want to speak about around this film. Already knowing Inside Man, this felt like a rather hollow attempt at a crime thriller. Had they taken out the connection to the first film and made it it's own film then I think it may have got a higher rating, not higher than three, but there was potential there for an average thriller.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/inside-man-most-wanted-movie-review.html
NYPD and the FBI handle a hostage negotiation at the US Federal Reserve. With civilians and one of their own inside they must draw on all their knowledge to try and resolve the situation without letting their egos and knowledge of the past cloud their judgement.
There's nothing like having to follow a popular film, and I'm not sure there would be many sequels that I would praise over its predecessor. Thankfully that isn't a point I need to ponder on for too long here.
At some point while watching I just stopped taking notes, for me that's either a very good sign or a very bad one... I think from the score you can probably tell which.
Inside Man: Most Wanted seems fully aware that it isn't Inside Man, and that there wasn't really a genuinely original storyline insight. There are a lot of callbacks to the first film that seem rather hammy and shoehorned in, but I'll elaborate on that later.
There weren't any actors that I recognised, though the top three have been in several things I'm aware of. I'm not going to dwell on the acting because I really found it just to be fine. I didn't see anything that made me want to call it out as good, and similarly there was nothing terrible. It was all... fine.
And in fact, that's my feeling for the whole film... and I apologise, because I've just realised that I do not have anything at all that I want to speak about around this film. Already knowing Inside Man, this felt like a rather hollow attempt at a crime thriller. Had they taken out the connection to the first film and made it it's own film then I think it may have got a higher rating, not higher than three, but there was potential there for an average thriller.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/03/inside-man-most-wanted-movie-review.html
Elli H Burton (1288 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Oct 28, 2019
Gives a fresh glimpse into the world the AMAZING JK Rowling created (1 more)
Definitely feel the casting was done well.
Dumbledamn.
Lets start with the fact that this film has Johnny Deep in it, yet it's not another Depp film. He fits in the role well I think, I mean, I know it's Johnny Depp and the man is fantastic but sometimes an actor of his caliber can stick out like a sore thumb but he slots in nicely.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
Eddie Redmayne is just one of the best actors England, NO the world has ever seen and he plays Newt FLAWLESSLY.
The story is fascinating, not just this film but the first as well, we all thought we knew so much about the Harry Potter universe but FB lets us explore the world even more which as a huge fan, I craved.
I love how dark the film is yet the lighter parts don't seem out of place. The choices the producers made in the way it is shot is magical in itself (I don't like spoilers so I hope if you have seen it or will be seeing it you will see what I mean).
As it has been confirmed there will be a 3rd installment of the FB franchise, I feel I can say without spoiling it that the ending was great. It had that "What???! I NEED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?!" feeling.
Another thing I like is that theres not a majorly star studded cast. I feel when films have big names left right and center it can sort of, over shadow the actual brilliance of the writing/ acting/ storyline /production. It just has good actors.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batgirl, Vol. 3: Death of the Family in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Man, I have no idea WTF happened here, but I am the minority, as I just wasn't feeling it here!
Gail Simone is a favorite writer of mine, as well as a sizable number of comic readers. I don't pick up everything she writes, i.e. Dynamite's RED SONJA series, but I do try to keep a lookout when a new series, or new writing assignment from her, is out. And, generally, she is all aces, except here!
This was a re-read for me, as I was reading BATMAN: DEATH OF THE FAMILY (which was AWESOME, btw!), and I wanted to get the whole story. I don't know what happened, but it just started to get on m nerves! I really, truly wanted to enjoy the second time, but just felt like bland potato salad!
Daniel Sampere's art, on the other hand, was flawless. All the characters, as well as the backgrounds, looked hella tight! I found myself more into the art that the actual story!
I am not 100% sure why I didn't like it. Mostly, I felt some of the characterizations were off, leaving to not give a fart about any of them! That right there is what makes a book, regardless of whether a comic or an actual prose work, the characters have to stand out and make you actually interested in them! Without factor, you have a book that will fail to attract attention, and ultimately, will fail, falling quite flat!
Ok, this is my closing part. This is where I give my final grade, as well as recommending, or trashing, the book being reviewed. Not gonna do it this time round! I want to say that you, yourself, should read this trade, seeing if you like it as much as the others seemed to, k'?
Gail Simone is a favorite writer of mine, as well as a sizable number of comic readers. I don't pick up everything she writes, i.e. Dynamite's RED SONJA series, but I do try to keep a lookout when a new series, or new writing assignment from her, is out. And, generally, she is all aces, except here!
This was a re-read for me, as I was reading BATMAN: DEATH OF THE FAMILY (which was AWESOME, btw!), and I wanted to get the whole story. I don't know what happened, but it just started to get on m nerves! I really, truly wanted to enjoy the second time, but just felt like bland potato salad!
Daniel Sampere's art, on the other hand, was flawless. All the characters, as well as the backgrounds, looked hella tight! I found myself more into the art that the actual story!
I am not 100% sure why I didn't like it. Mostly, I felt some of the characterizations were off, leaving to not give a fart about any of them! That right there is what makes a book, regardless of whether a comic or an actual prose work, the characters have to stand out and make you actually interested in them! Without factor, you have a book that will fail to attract attention, and ultimately, will fail, falling quite flat!
Ok, this is my closing part. This is where I give my final grade, as well as recommending, or trashing, the book being reviewed. Not gonna do it this time round! I want to say that you, yourself, should read this trade, seeing if you like it as much as the others seemed to, k'?
ArecRain (8 KP) rated Servant: The Kindred (Servant, #3) in Books
Jan 18, 2018
I almost feel bad having this series as my first review since I have absolutely nothing good to say about this book, or the series for that matter. Every element of this book was just terrible, from the language to the plot development, or lack thereof.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnÂ’t bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word “the” or “and”. The fact that Gaby couldn’t form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Foster’s attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and LutherÂ’s arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that GabyÂ’s character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, LutherÂ’s partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about GabyÂ’s past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by FosterÂ’s writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
By the time I came to the final novel in the Servant trilogy, I quite literally had to force myself to read every page. Unlike the first two, where I became hooked on a goal that Gabrielle Cody was trying to reach, this book just grossed me out, bored me, and irritated me when I wasnÂ’t bored. After the first chapter, I lost any hope that this novel was an improvement on the first two.
The foul language was so excessive that I noticed myself just passing over it like you would the word “the” or “and”. The fact that Gaby couldn’t form a sentence without saying the f-word seemed a bit juvenile to me. Foster’s attempt to make Gaby seem uneducated is contradicted when she randomly uses words like cathartic. It was out of her character.
The characters were more frustrating in this novel than in the previous ones. Gaby and LutherÂ’s arguing left me so annoyed that, at times, I just skipped over it. I could not understand why Luther was so obsessed with her since any normal person probably would just ignored her from the get go. However, I felt that GabyÂ’s character had become more realistic in her feelings and thoughts. I actually liked that Gaby was so jealous of Ann, LutherÂ’s partner who is perfect in every way. I also liked the relationship she forms with Bliss, a ex-prostitute that Gaby saved from the streets, and the two orphans that Gaby takes under her wing.
The biggest problem I have with this series is the pedestal that Foster place Gaby upon. Foster makes her protagonist so strong and unbeatable that, more than once, I thought that the author was trying to make Gaby a god on earth. Gaby only obtains one injury through the entire novel, a bullet wound that is used to further the plot. Without the bullet wound, Gaby would have never gone to get a tattoo. Nobody can touch Gaby, something I found not only a nuascance but unlikely.
The final noteworthy thing about this book, is that we discover Gaby ancestry. I felt appeased in my search for discovering more about GabyÂ’s past and parents. Any surprise I had about her parentage was nullified by FosterÂ’s writing style.
I do believe I have complained enough about this series. I did have hope for it but was disappointed. After reading such an unpleasing series, I am going to read a book I know I should end up enjoying.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Impressive Cast & Visuals Are Not Enough When Compared To The First Film's Magical Story
Contains spoilers, click to show
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unknown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc..
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Hourglass (Hourglass, #1) in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Let me just say right now that I'm glad I didn't judge this book by its cover, because I never would have requested it. The cover doesn't particularly appeal to me; for that matter, the title didn't make me curious either. Even after I read the back cover I wasn't convinced. I like to be intrigued and the cover/summary fooled me. But I saw a good review for it somewhere, so I snatched it up. I'm very happy I did.
Time travel has been done poorly so many times, but Hourglass was fantastic. It was original and creative, and it met every requirement for a perfect book: it had tension, awesome characters, a well thought out and multi-layered plot, and good writing.
There was tension in every sentence of ever paragraph of every chapter. It was nearly impossible to put down. I completely lost track of time while I read it. (haha, lost track of…get it?…. it's a time travel book…never mind.) I was forced to put it down to do things like work and chores and food, but except for things like that, it kept me reading, and there were no empty scenes.
The characters were amazing. Can I just say that I want to marry Michael right now? omigoodness. He's going on my list. Any author who can write a character like that is going on my favorites list right now. Emerson is strong-willed, kick-ass, and has to remind herself that she's short because her personality is the opposite. She was the perfect heroine because she was real and fragile and head over heels in love with someone she wasn't supposed to love. Michael was the brave proud chivalrous attractive protagonist who has a major hero complex, and of course is trying not to be in love with Em (and failing miserably). Both of them together had humorous conversations and explosive chemistry. (like, things short circuit when they touch, and light bulbs break when they kiss.)
The plot kept me guessing all the way to the end, and the last quarter of the book threw so many twists and turns at me that I found myself thinking, "Ok wait, what? are you serious?" But it wasn't overdone, there was no overkill, and it worked perfectly in the end. (I'll keep it spoiler free, but I'll just say don't worry, it does work out. Don't get mad and throw the book against the wall like I did.)
And of course, the writing. I find that many young adult novels have mediocre writing. McEntire is a good writer in the sense that she can keep the tension real and controlling, she has good descriptions and great pacing, and there are no dead words.
Hourglass was fast-paced, exciting, unique, and completely enthralling. I anxiously await more from McEntire hope for more of Michael and Emerson's story in the future.
Content/recommendation: some mild language, no sex. Ages 16+
Time travel has been done poorly so many times, but Hourglass was fantastic. It was original and creative, and it met every requirement for a perfect book: it had tension, awesome characters, a well thought out and multi-layered plot, and good writing.
There was tension in every sentence of ever paragraph of every chapter. It was nearly impossible to put down. I completely lost track of time while I read it. (haha, lost track of…get it?…. it's a time travel book…never mind.) I was forced to put it down to do things like work and chores and food, but except for things like that, it kept me reading, and there were no empty scenes.
The characters were amazing. Can I just say that I want to marry Michael right now? omigoodness. He's going on my list. Any author who can write a character like that is going on my favorites list right now. Emerson is strong-willed, kick-ass, and has to remind herself that she's short because her personality is the opposite. She was the perfect heroine because she was real and fragile and head over heels in love with someone she wasn't supposed to love. Michael was the brave proud chivalrous attractive protagonist who has a major hero complex, and of course is trying not to be in love with Em (and failing miserably). Both of them together had humorous conversations and explosive chemistry. (like, things short circuit when they touch, and light bulbs break when they kiss.)
The plot kept me guessing all the way to the end, and the last quarter of the book threw so many twists and turns at me that I found myself thinking, "Ok wait, what? are you serious?" But it wasn't overdone, there was no overkill, and it worked perfectly in the end. (I'll keep it spoiler free, but I'll just say don't worry, it does work out. Don't get mad and throw the book against the wall like I did.)
And of course, the writing. I find that many young adult novels have mediocre writing. McEntire is a good writer in the sense that she can keep the tension real and controlling, she has good descriptions and great pacing, and there are no dead words.
Hourglass was fast-paced, exciting, unique, and completely enthralling. I anxiously await more from McEntire hope for more of Michael and Emerson's story in the future.
Content/recommendation: some mild language, no sex. Ages 16+
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Robin Hood (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
At this point I feel like I've grown u with definitive versions of Robin Hood. Kevin Costner will always be a front runner, and Disney's foxified version brings a smile to my face every time. I was also lucky to have been shown Robin Hood Men In Tights when I was younger and will always appreciate Cary Elwes' rendition. Errol Flynn will always be the high point for class in the role. There's always that one we don't talk about... Russell Crowe, I'm looking at you. We probably should consider the small screen as well, after all should we be excluding Robin from Madi Marian and Her Merry Men?
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
After the one we don't talk about I had fairly low expectations for this. Did we really need to reboot this icon?
The answer is evidently a resounding yes. No one is more surprised about this than I am. He's still not the best Robin (sorry... Rob) but he's an excellent modern adaptation for those who don't want to go old school with their viewing.
Taron Egerton doesn't quite have the on-screen presence of a lord, he's something or a whipper-snapper in Robin terms. He'd be much more at home in an episode of Arrow. Watch out, Roy. In fact that would be my guess of what happened in the pitching of this one. "Arrow is basically Robin Hood, shall we just do that?"
Ben Mendelsohn proved himself to be an excellent villain in Ready Player One, and he's brought himself back to that high with the Sheriff of Nottingham. Cruel and egotistical he makes an easy focus for everyone's revolutionary efforts.
Friar Tuck... hmm. Tim Minchin was an interesting choice. My main issue is that he basically seems to have played it as Bill Bailey. That was something that stuck out from the very first time we saw him and from that point on all I could think was that they might as well have got Bill Bailey to do it.
I had hoped that like the trailer the film would feature some modern music as well as what turned out to be some very atmospheric background ensemble. Sadly not though. Maybe it's just me pining back to A Knight's Tale.
Round of applause for the cinematography. Everything flowed really well and that opening scene of war (which you can see some of in the trailer above) really drew you in. In fact, the whole scene felt very much more modern than bows and arrows and was a striking moment in the film.
If cinematography is at the top, the writing is somewhere near the bottom. Generally it was passable and I didn't really notice it. That sounds odd, but you know what I mean, sometimes it is just there and doesn't really leave a mark. Every now and then you'd get a curve ball of a line that made me recoil and stopped my enjoyment of the film. Speeches that should have had power in the words didn't, there was no feeling of being roused to action like so many great films are able to do.
As a final comment... why must you mess with the naturally accepted order of characters?
What you should do
Go for the action, not the script. It's quite impressive on the big screen and Jamie Foxx's John holds some quiet moments of humour that are worth seeing.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I would quite like John's ability to heal and not die. That seems like a massively impressive part of his character.
Dean (6927 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
Same story with different visuals
Yet another re-imaging update of a Disney classic. People will always have quite varied reactions to these films depending in how high regard they hold the original. So far they have been a bit hit and miss, with Dumbo the worst for me. This is more in line with the Jungle book, with the same director. The story is pretty much exactly the same as the original. The difference is the amazing life like animation of the animals. So good it will feel like a nature documentary at times, waiting for David Attenborough to narrate over.
The voice cast is OK with only James Earl Jones voice standing out as he has such a commanding tone. The songs were just ok for me and I think this is where most people might be disappointed with this version. Overall it's a good story still given a technically excellent make-over. Just maybe lacking a little charm here and there.
The voice cast is OK with only James Earl Jones voice standing out as he has such a commanding tone. The songs were just ok for me and I think this is where most people might be disappointed with this version. Overall it's a good story still given a technically excellent make-over. Just maybe lacking a little charm here and there.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Oct 25, 2019 (Updated Nov 5, 2019)
Amazingly average, wholly unessecary
Here we have a reboot of a mildly popular film franchise, based on a video game that is a reboot of a hugely beloved game series.
To sum up Tomb Raider in brief - if you are a fan of the original games, and don't really like the direction the recent games have taken, there is probably nothing here that will interest you.
If you are a fan of the recent game series, then you are probably better off just playing those instead of watching the movie adaption.
The film itself isn't terrible by any means, it's just completely bland and forgettable.
The plot is a run of the mill treasure hunting escapade, which we have seen countless times before, and done much better, with irrelevant side plots that bog down an already boring plot.
The action is so so, with some nice stunt work scattered here and there.
Alicia Vikander seems bored herself - I think as a movie, Tomb Raider is (very slightly) more credible than than the early 2000 efforts, but I do think the character of Lara Croft benefits from Angelina Jolie's charm.
It's like the writers couldn't decide whether to adapt the inexperienced and fighting-to-survive Lara Croft from the reboot series, or the more confident, one-liner Lara Croft from the original series, resulting in a flat adaption of either one.
All of the other characters involved are just as flat, so much so that I genuinely can't remember any of their names, or even who played them, with the exception of Dominic West - that dude is just in everything.
The script doesn't help matters one bit, threatening to put you to sleep at any given moment, and riddled with unintentionally funny Hollywood rubbish.
In summary, Tomb Raider can join the ever growing festering pile of dissapointment that are video game movies. (Except you Detective Pikachu, we love you <3)
To sum up Tomb Raider in brief - if you are a fan of the original games, and don't really like the direction the recent games have taken, there is probably nothing here that will interest you.
If you are a fan of the recent game series, then you are probably better off just playing those instead of watching the movie adaption.
The film itself isn't terrible by any means, it's just completely bland and forgettable.
The plot is a run of the mill treasure hunting escapade, which we have seen countless times before, and done much better, with irrelevant side plots that bog down an already boring plot.
The action is so so, with some nice stunt work scattered here and there.
Alicia Vikander seems bored herself - I think as a movie, Tomb Raider is (very slightly) more credible than than the early 2000 efforts, but I do think the character of Lara Croft benefits from Angelina Jolie's charm.
It's like the writers couldn't decide whether to adapt the inexperienced and fighting-to-survive Lara Croft from the reboot series, or the more confident, one-liner Lara Croft from the original series, resulting in a flat adaption of either one.
All of the other characters involved are just as flat, so much so that I genuinely can't remember any of their names, or even who played them, with the exception of Dominic West - that dude is just in everything.
The script doesn't help matters one bit, threatening to put you to sleep at any given moment, and riddled with unintentionally funny Hollywood rubbish.
In summary, Tomb Raider can join the ever growing festering pile of dissapointment that are video game movies. (Except you Detective Pikachu, we love you <3)
Lou Grande (148 KP) rated SuperFly (2018) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
Stick to the original
Something just didn't translate here. From the '70s to the current time, culture has changed, and so has drug habits. I was sitting in the theater wondering what city in the States has a cocaine flow like that, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.
The plot is basically the same: drug heists, setups, betrayals. It just sort of fell flat. Priest ended up looking more like a hipster that hangs around Starbucks, not Superfly. His hairstyle (a rather pronounced side-parted quiff) ended up looking silly. And speaking of silly, the sex scene was slightly comedic. It felt shoe-horned in. It doesn't quite flow in the context of the film. And one of the actresses obviously didn't get paid enough to go topless, so they used trick angles to cover her breasts. Normally I wouldn't complain (you do you), but it doesn't fit with the genre of film.
I don't know. Everything fell flat to me. It didn't even have anything to laugh at.
The plot is basically the same: drug heists, setups, betrayals. It just sort of fell flat. Priest ended up looking more like a hipster that hangs around Starbucks, not Superfly. His hairstyle (a rather pronounced side-parted quiff) ended up looking silly. And speaking of silly, the sex scene was slightly comedic. It felt shoe-horned in. It doesn't quite flow in the context of the film. And one of the actresses obviously didn't get paid enough to go topless, so they used trick angles to cover her breasts. Normally I wouldn't complain (you do you), but it doesn't fit with the genre of film.
I don't know. Everything fell flat to me. It didn't even have anything to laugh at.