Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The French Dispatch (2021) in Movies
Jan 4, 2022
Weak Stories Can't Support the STUNNING Visuals
Filmmaker Wes Anderson is an acquired taste. He is one of the most visually stunning filmmakers working today, but his films are often time difficult to grasp and can get lost in their own weirdness.
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with his latest effort THE FRENCH DISPATCH. It is a visually STUNNING film that you can turn the sound off and just drink in the images depicted on screen with your eyes - but the story these pictures tell was, unfortunately, not all that compelling.
Starring Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jeffrey Wright and a whole bundle of known stars, THE FRENCH DISPATCH tells the story of a Sunday Newspaper insert called THE FRENCH DISPATCH (think PARADE MAGAZINE). The quirk of the FRENCH DISPATCH is that this insert in the Liberty, Kansas paper in the 1930’s(or so) focuses solely on the goings-on of the French town of Enui. Stories told in the flavor of the New Yorker.
So…this setup is just, really, an excuse to tell 3 different short stories and tie them together with an overarching theme - getting the French Dispatch ready to publish. A good enough excuse for a movie - provided that the 3 stories being told are interesting enough - which they are not (and therein lies the issue with this film).
Bill Murray is a congenial enough host of this party as the Editor of The French Dispatch. His character is the “through line” of this film and if you are going to anchor an anthology film with a character/actor, then Bill Murray is a pretty good anchor.
The first story, telling of a life-imprisoned person (Benicio Del Toro) who finds a muse (Lea Seydoux) and becomes a world famous artist, thanks to the efforts of his patron (Adrian Brody) is the best of the bunch. This story is written/narrated by a character played by Tilda Swinton and it is her performance that is the highlight of the film for me. Because of this narration - and because this is the best written/most interesting and best acted of the 3 stories (by Del Toro, Seydoux and Brody), I was excited as to where this film was going to go from here.
Unfortunately, that direction was down.
The 3rd story - narrated by a character played by Jeffrey Wright about a Police Commissioner’s son who is kidnapped is absurb - and almost succeeds when Anderson decides to animate the car chase - but ultimately isn’t quite as good as the first piece.
And then there is the middle part that stars Timothee Chalamet as a student that starts a rebellion. This part is written/narrated by a character played by Frances McDormand and while these 2 are “game” for what is given to them, the story is not compelling and, to be honest, a bit boring. This middle story (the longest of the 3 tales) is where the movie loses it’s footing.
And that’s too bad for Anderson - as is his custom - fills every frame with interesting pictures/visuals that are a marvel to look at and fills almost every minor role with some sort of major star looking to work with him. Almost the best part of this film was to spot the star in a cameo role. Willem DaFoe, Saoirse Ronan, Liev Schrieber, the “Fonz” himself, Henry Winkler, Cristoph Walz and Anderson “regulars” Jason Schwartman, Edward Norton and Owen Wilson (amongst others) all show up - briefly - to lend their talents to this absurdity.
Well worth checking out for the visuals, just don’t look for much in the way of plot or drama.
Letter Grade: B (did I mention that the visuals are STUNNING?)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Character development (2 more)
Background
Story and plot = top notch
Amazing and will leave you on the edge of your seat!
As many of you know, I've struggled at getting into audio books but I think I've finally started to come around to the idea of them. I was given two free months of Scribd to try out and this is the second audio book that I've listened too.
At first, I wasn't too big of a fan of the narrator. She just sounded like she didn't give any care in the world and to be honest, her voice was very high pitched and rather annoying. Well, once we got into a little bit deeper into the story, the narrator actually grew on me. Don't judge a book by it's cover, I know I know. I'm rather bad at that haha.
“You have to learn to look at the whole of something, not just the parts.”
One thing that I rather liked about Warcross was that it delved into depression and loss a tad bit. Authors that can work that angle along with including a mass amount of diversity into their stories really are amazing human beings.
I absolutely love reading YA that includes diversity such as different ethnicity and LGBTQ+. Warcross has it both, and even has the main character, Emika, as a POC. This really brought the novel together and created this colorful novel that left me on the edge of my seat.
“It is hard to describe loss to someone who has never experienced it, impossible to explain all the ways it changes you. But for those who have, not a single word is needed.”
Warcross begins by following Emika in her journey of catching someone who has been illegally gambling within the game Warcross. She works as a bounty hunter and is rather good at her job. But, the main problem that she has is there are so many bounty hunters out there, so jobs are not quite an easy thing to get. This doesn't help Emika's debt problem at all. She's on the verge of losing her apartment and being put on the side of the street.
Opening ceremony night comes for the Warcross championships and Emika accidentally hacks into it. The creator of Warcross, Hideo Tanaka, ends up contacting her and hiring Emika as a bounty hunter to catch Zero. But what Emika doesn't realize is that she will be joining the championship as well to act as a spy. She is thrown in and immediately picked as a wildcard. But the journey she's about to take isn't what it's all put out to be.
Danger lurks behind every corner and people are not who they truly say they are. For Emika's in a life and death battle that could drastically change the future.
“Everyone has a different way of escaping the dark stillness of their mind.”
Characters:
Emika Chen - bounty hunter, hacker, the main character who has rainbow dyed hair and is an absolute rockin' badass.
Hideo Tanaka - billionaire creator of Warcross and eventually a love interest to Emika
Sasuke Tanaka - brother to Hideo, he was kidnapped at a young age and nobody knows if he's even alive.
Zero - the antagonist, or so we thought. Emika is trying to catch him.
Hammie, Roshan, DJ Ren, & Asher - members of the Phoenix Riders
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot was top notch, absolutely amazing, and one of the best I've seen in awhile!
2. I will be rereading this once I get my hands on a physical copy. I may even re-listen to the audio book. It was just that good!
3. There is so much character and story development within the story and Marie Lu is a breath of fresh air. Not only did she include development, but there was background and representation!
4. Grammar and spelling isn't being counted against because I have no idea. It sounded good, but the narrator could have fixed stuff. Like I literally have no idea what the writing is like since I listened to Warcross on audio book.
5. The overall story left me wanting more of Warcross, more of Emika, more of what's in store for Emika. I just NEED MORE!
"Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.”
At first, I wasn't too big of a fan of the narrator. She just sounded like she didn't give any care in the world and to be honest, her voice was very high pitched and rather annoying. Well, once we got into a little bit deeper into the story, the narrator actually grew on me. Don't judge a book by it's cover, I know I know. I'm rather bad at that haha.
“You have to learn to look at the whole of something, not just the parts.”
One thing that I rather liked about Warcross was that it delved into depression and loss a tad bit. Authors that can work that angle along with including a mass amount of diversity into their stories really are amazing human beings.
I absolutely love reading YA that includes diversity such as different ethnicity and LGBTQ+. Warcross has it both, and even has the main character, Emika, as a POC. This really brought the novel together and created this colorful novel that left me on the edge of my seat.
“It is hard to describe loss to someone who has never experienced it, impossible to explain all the ways it changes you. But for those who have, not a single word is needed.”
Warcross begins by following Emika in her journey of catching someone who has been illegally gambling within the game Warcross. She works as a bounty hunter and is rather good at her job. But, the main problem that she has is there are so many bounty hunters out there, so jobs are not quite an easy thing to get. This doesn't help Emika's debt problem at all. She's on the verge of losing her apartment and being put on the side of the street.
Opening ceremony night comes for the Warcross championships and Emika accidentally hacks into it. The creator of Warcross, Hideo Tanaka, ends up contacting her and hiring Emika as a bounty hunter to catch Zero. But what Emika doesn't realize is that she will be joining the championship as well to act as a spy. She is thrown in and immediately picked as a wildcard. But the journey she's about to take isn't what it's all put out to be.
Danger lurks behind every corner and people are not who they truly say they are. For Emika's in a life and death battle that could drastically change the future.
“Everyone has a different way of escaping the dark stillness of their mind.”
Characters:
Emika Chen - bounty hunter, hacker, the main character who has rainbow dyed hair and is an absolute rockin' badass.
Hideo Tanaka - billionaire creator of Warcross and eventually a love interest to Emika
Sasuke Tanaka - brother to Hideo, he was kidnapped at a young age and nobody knows if he's even alive.
Zero - the antagonist, or so we thought. Emika is trying to catch him.
Hammie, Roshan, DJ Ren, & Asher - members of the Phoenix Riders
Reasons why I rated it 5 stars:
1. The plot was top notch, absolutely amazing, and one of the best I've seen in awhile!
2. I will be rereading this once I get my hands on a physical copy. I may even re-listen to the audio book. It was just that good!
3. There is so much character and story development within the story and Marie Lu is a breath of fresh air. Not only did she include development, but there was background and representation!
4. Grammar and spelling isn't being counted against because I have no idea. It sounded good, but the narrator could have fixed stuff. Like I literally have no idea what the writing is like since I listened to Warcross on audio book.
5. The overall story left me wanting more of Warcross, more of Emika, more of what's in store for Emika. I just NEED MORE!
"Everything's science fiction until someone makes it science fact.”
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
A fun "who-will-survive" flick
During the Super Bowl, a "surprise" trailer dropped for a new entry in the Cloverfield family of films. The good news is that the film was dropping on Netflix the next day, so fanboys immediately jumped on-line and then started hating on it (again, on-line) because it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be.
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated The Hazel Wood in Books
Nov 9, 2018
Alice and her mother, Ella, have been on the road for as long as she can remember, constantly followed by some kind of freak bad luck. When word reaches them that Ella’s mother, famous fairytale author Althea Proserpine, has died, they think they’re safe...until Ella gets kidnapped by the Hinterlands. To save her, Alice must venture into the Hazel Wood.
I LOVE fairy tales, the darker, the better as far as I’m concerned. So when I’m told about a book that is based around dark, original fairytales, naturally I wanted to read it as soon as I could get my hands on it. However, it wasn’t quite what I expected.
Although this is a book about fairy tales and their characters being real, we are only told two stories: ‘Alice Three Times’ and ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’. This means that when we meet the Nightwalkers, Twice-Killed-Katherine, the Briar King and Hansa the Traveller, we don’t know what to make of them because we don’t know their stories. Now, I am all for discovering more about characters and their motivations as the story unfolds, but we never get that with these characters - it’s almost just assumed that we know who they are. I even checked online to see if I was reading the second book in the series by mistake! There is a book being written called ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ which is the collection of stories that these characters are from, but it is set to be published in 2020 when really it should have come first. Having said all of that, I did really like the ‘real world’ characters, and I thought that Janet and Spinner were super cool.
The atmosphere was really good throughout, even in the middle section when I found it hard to read because I couldn’t connect were really atmospheric. I loved the strange surrealness and dreamlike writing that was very fairy tale-ish, and it was brilliant. I also really enjoyed the writing style. I don’t think that I’ve properly ever read a book with so many current references and I quite like it. It makes the book feel very contemporary (after all it was only published in January) and in our world, while still having the other world, the Hinterland, mixed in which gives it a slight feeling of invasion and overlap. It also really suits Alice’s character and voice since she is narrating the story and was brought up very much in our world.
The plot was good on the whole. My main issue, once again, comes down to the fact that the stories weren’t told - or rather that the wrong one was. ‘Alice Three Times’ was great because it became relevant but ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’ seemed not to have any purpose. Surely if there was one story that Finch would have told Alice, it would have been ‘Twice-Killed-Katherine’ as she is following them for most of the first half of the book (and then just disappears for no real reason).
While the beginning and end of the book are really great and really gripping, I found most of the middle section really difficult to read because, guess what, we didn’t know the stories! When I started reading this book, I thought that I would finish it in the same week I started it...that was two weeks ago. The middle of the book is when Alice actually enters the Hinterland, but since we don’t know anything about the characters or the world, it feels like we’re constantly playing catch up. Whenever I decided what I was going to sit down, grit my teeth and get through it, it felt like it was a chore and I could only manage one or two chapters at a time. It gets very gripping again from chapter twenty-eight when Alice starts to get sucked into the story, but that’s because we’ve already been told ‘Alice Three Times”.
Although I did like ‘The Hazel Wood’, a middle did take a lot of the enjoyment out of reading it. Maybe when ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ comes out, I’ll read that then give this book another shot when I am more informed.
Characters: 6/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Intrigue: 6/10
Logic: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
I LOVE fairy tales, the darker, the better as far as I’m concerned. So when I’m told about a book that is based around dark, original fairytales, naturally I wanted to read it as soon as I could get my hands on it. However, it wasn’t quite what I expected.
Although this is a book about fairy tales and their characters being real, we are only told two stories: ‘Alice Three Times’ and ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’. This means that when we meet the Nightwalkers, Twice-Killed-Katherine, the Briar King and Hansa the Traveller, we don’t know what to make of them because we don’t know their stories. Now, I am all for discovering more about characters and their motivations as the story unfolds, but we never get that with these characters - it’s almost just assumed that we know who they are. I even checked online to see if I was reading the second book in the series by mistake! There is a book being written called ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ which is the collection of stories that these characters are from, but it is set to be published in 2020 when really it should have come first. Having said all of that, I did really like the ‘real world’ characters, and I thought that Janet and Spinner were super cool.
The atmosphere was really good throughout, even in the middle section when I found it hard to read because I couldn’t connect were really atmospheric. I loved the strange surrealness and dreamlike writing that was very fairy tale-ish, and it was brilliant. I also really enjoyed the writing style. I don’t think that I’ve properly ever read a book with so many current references and I quite like it. It makes the book feel very contemporary (after all it was only published in January) and in our world, while still having the other world, the Hinterland, mixed in which gives it a slight feeling of invasion and overlap. It also really suits Alice’s character and voice since she is narrating the story and was brought up very much in our world.
The plot was good on the whole. My main issue, once again, comes down to the fact that the stories weren’t told - or rather that the wrong one was. ‘Alice Three Times’ was great because it became relevant but ‘The Door That Wasn’t There’ seemed not to have any purpose. Surely if there was one story that Finch would have told Alice, it would have been ‘Twice-Killed-Katherine’ as she is following them for most of the first half of the book (and then just disappears for no real reason).
While the beginning and end of the book are really great and really gripping, I found most of the middle section really difficult to read because, guess what, we didn’t know the stories! When I started reading this book, I thought that I would finish it in the same week I started it...that was two weeks ago. The middle of the book is when Alice actually enters the Hinterland, but since we don’t know anything about the characters or the world, it feels like we’re constantly playing catch up. Whenever I decided what I was going to sit down, grit my teeth and get through it, it felt like it was a chore and I could only manage one or two chapters at a time. It gets very gripping again from chapter twenty-eight when Alice starts to get sucked into the story, but that’s because we’ve already been told ‘Alice Three Times”.
Although I did like ‘The Hazel Wood’, a middle did take a lot of the enjoyment out of reading it. Maybe when ‘Tales From The Hinterland’ comes out, I’ll read that then give this book another shot when I am more informed.
Characters: 6/10
Atmosphere: 8/10
Writing Style: 8/10
Plot: 7/10
Intrigue: 6/10
Logic: 7/10
Enjoyment: 7/10
Darren (1599 KP) rated 12 Years a Slave (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Watching how Solomon struggles to just survive let alone becoming free again. We see how different men who have slaves treat them, some well some badly. The story shows the tragic truth about how slaves were treated and even though this story get a happy ending of freedom, most never got that chance, with this still happening in the modern world it should make everyone be thankful for the fact they are free now. The story is an inspiration story of survival and not giving up hope. (10/10)
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Actor Reviews
Chiwetel Ejiofor: Solomon kidnapped and sold into slavery, not resting on the fact he will never escape he tries over the 12 years to find a way to get his own freedom before finally finding someone to trust enough. Chiwetel is brilliant in the role and fully deserved his BAFTA for best actor. (10/10)
solomon
Michael Fassbender: Edwin Epps the drunken plantation owner who abuses his slaves for his own pleasure, enforced strict rules and taking all the hope out of his slaves. Great performance from Fassbender playing a character that is driven to be hated. (9/10)
fassbender
REPORT THIS AD
Lupita Nyong’o: Patsey one of the slaves on Epps’s plantation who is his favourite as she is the best picker and also he favourite for his sexual pleasures. Great performance, showing that the hope had been taken from some of the slaves. (10/10)
lupita
Brad Pitt: Bass a free roaming labourer who doesn’t turn up to late in the film, becomes the last chance for Solomon. Only a small role but does a good job.(8/10)
pitt
Paul Dano: Tibeats, Ford’s evil slaver runner who pushes all of them to limits they shouldn’t have to go, he thinks he is better than all of the slaves, but Solomon teaches him a thing or too. Good performance from Dano showing he can fit into any role with ease. (8/10)
dano
Paul Giamatti: Freeman the slave sales man who put them all up for show so that the highest bidder will purchase them. Only a small role but affectively showing how the slavery sales were made to be glamorous for what they are doing. (7/10)
paul
REPORT THIS AD
Benedict Cumberbatch: Ford a good man who looks after his slaves, Ford purchases Solomon and is willing to listen to Solomon’s ideas to improve his work. Forced to sell on Solomon, but always looked after them all fair. Good supporting performance and his character reflexes how evil Epps is.(8/10)
benedict
Sarah Paulson: Mistress Epps the wife of Edwin, who has a dislike for Patsey but an almost sympatric side to the rest of the slaves. Good performance and the one scene with Patsey is really stand out. (9/10)
mistress epps
Director Review: Steve McQueen – Brilliant direction to tell such an amazing story of one man’s journey. (10/10)
Biography: Amazing look at how Solomon survived his ordeal. (10/10)
Drama: Stunning look at something that could have been all guns, blood and gore, but focuses on the emotions involved with the people. (10/10)
History: Good look at how people were treated during the slave times. (10/10)
Settings: Beautiful settings used to create the story. (10/10)
Suggestion: This really should be watched by all, but I do feel the more casual film fan may find it hard to watch. (Watch)
Best Part: Chiwetel Performance.
Worst Part: Some of the punishment scenes are hard to watch.
Favourite Quote: Solomon ‘I will not fall into despair! I will keep myself hardy until freedom is opportune!’
Believability: Based on Solomon’s true story. (10/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
REPORT THIS AD
Oscar Chances: Won 3 Oscars.
Box Office: $178,413,838
Budget: $20 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 13 Minutes
Tagline: The extraordinary true story of Solomon Northup.
Overall: Stunning Story
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/05/12/12-years-a-slave-2013/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Harkening back to the days of episodic serials, “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” attempts to blend the thrills of the old adventure films and serials with the high tech computer effects of the modern age.
The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law as reporter Polly Prince and Aviator Sky Captain, who are reunited during a surprise attack on New York by an army of robot . Polly has been investigating a recent wake of scientists who have vanished under mysterious circumstances, and when the robots attack, Polly sees a connection and gets in contact with her old flame the Sky Captain.
Sky Captain is not thrilled to see Polly as he does not trust her, especially when they last parted under a difficult situation where the Sky Captain was left in a dangerous situation as a result of Polly’s ambition. Nevertheless, the duo team up and investigate the cause of the attacks. No sooner does the duo start the investigation, then Sky Captain’s base is attacked and his friend and gadget creator Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), has been kidnapped.
In a race against time to save Dex and stop the evil Dr. Totenkoph from destroying the world, Sky Captain and Polly must travel the globe meeting all manner of deadly and bizarre resistance in some of the most remote locations on the planet. Eventually the team meets up with Captain Franky Cook, (Angelina Jolie), who also has a past with Sky Captain, and her legion of flying forces help stage an attack on the good doctors compound in a lavish display of FX and action as they attempt to gain entry to a hidden fortress.
With the clock ticking, and the situation growing tense, Sky Captain and his crew must traverse the exotic and deadly location of the hidden location before it is to late if they are to stop the doctor and his henchmen (Bai Ling), and save Dex, the missing scientists, and the world.
While ambitious “Sky Captain” suffers from a lack of focus as the film tries to do too much. Writer/Director Kerry Conran does a good job in his first feature, as he is able to blend lavish visuals in a unique and creative way to create and populate the world of the film. Sadly though, the performances of Paltrow and Law are remarkably understated and the talented cast often comes across as bland. This causes the audience to have little connection with the characters and any real tension or chemistry is sadly lacking. We know there was some history between the two lead characters but it is mostly glossed over in favor of the action that after a while comes across as more of the same and becomes bland. Only the Franky character stands out as Jollie plays her with a sultry charm and flair that hides her devilish streak, yet emphasizes the strength of her character and her loyalty to the captain.
I had really wanted to like this film, as I found the premise to be interesting, however the action sequences were rather under whelming and to me it was very obvious that the film was filmed entirely against screens and used CGI for everything from buildings to sets. While ambitious, it became overwhelming after a while and in more than one instance the backgrounds were obviously false and did not match up well with the actors.
While this can be excused, what cant be a pedestrian plot that borrows heavily from other works, and while they like this film were inspired by the serials of old, and pulp comics, I could not help but see the “Indiana Jones”, “Star Wars”, and “Jurassic Park”, over and over in the film. Law, Jolie and Paltrow are talented actors but they are given little to do aside from run around and spout stale dialogue from a story that is already muddled down by a lackluster plot, lack of tension, pacing, and average special effects.
Conran is a director with promise and it should be noted that despite the film’s faults, the film was a daunting task as it was shot in just 29 days, which would strain even the most seasoned of directors. As it stands “Sky Captain” is an average film that could have been much better with just a little more time in the hangar.
The film stars Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law as reporter Polly Prince and Aviator Sky Captain, who are reunited during a surprise attack on New York by an army of robot . Polly has been investigating a recent wake of scientists who have vanished under mysterious circumstances, and when the robots attack, Polly sees a connection and gets in contact with her old flame the Sky Captain.
Sky Captain is not thrilled to see Polly as he does not trust her, especially when they last parted under a difficult situation where the Sky Captain was left in a dangerous situation as a result of Polly’s ambition. Nevertheless, the duo team up and investigate the cause of the attacks. No sooner does the duo start the investigation, then Sky Captain’s base is attacked and his friend and gadget creator Dex (Giovanni Ribisi), has been kidnapped.
In a race against time to save Dex and stop the evil Dr. Totenkoph from destroying the world, Sky Captain and Polly must travel the globe meeting all manner of deadly and bizarre resistance in some of the most remote locations on the planet. Eventually the team meets up with Captain Franky Cook, (Angelina Jolie), who also has a past with Sky Captain, and her legion of flying forces help stage an attack on the good doctors compound in a lavish display of FX and action as they attempt to gain entry to a hidden fortress.
With the clock ticking, and the situation growing tense, Sky Captain and his crew must traverse the exotic and deadly location of the hidden location before it is to late if they are to stop the doctor and his henchmen (Bai Ling), and save Dex, the missing scientists, and the world.
While ambitious “Sky Captain” suffers from a lack of focus as the film tries to do too much. Writer/Director Kerry Conran does a good job in his first feature, as he is able to blend lavish visuals in a unique and creative way to create and populate the world of the film. Sadly though, the performances of Paltrow and Law are remarkably understated and the talented cast often comes across as bland. This causes the audience to have little connection with the characters and any real tension or chemistry is sadly lacking. We know there was some history between the two lead characters but it is mostly glossed over in favor of the action that after a while comes across as more of the same and becomes bland. Only the Franky character stands out as Jollie plays her with a sultry charm and flair that hides her devilish streak, yet emphasizes the strength of her character and her loyalty to the captain.
I had really wanted to like this film, as I found the premise to be interesting, however the action sequences were rather under whelming and to me it was very obvious that the film was filmed entirely against screens and used CGI for everything from buildings to sets. While ambitious, it became overwhelming after a while and in more than one instance the backgrounds were obviously false and did not match up well with the actors.
While this can be excused, what cant be a pedestrian plot that borrows heavily from other works, and while they like this film were inspired by the serials of old, and pulp comics, I could not help but see the “Indiana Jones”, “Star Wars”, and “Jurassic Park”, over and over in the film. Law, Jolie and Paltrow are talented actors but they are given little to do aside from run around and spout stale dialogue from a story that is already muddled down by a lackluster plot, lack of tension, pacing, and average special effects.
Conran is a director with promise and it should be noted that despite the film’s faults, the film was a daunting task as it was shot in just 29 days, which would strain even the most seasoned of directors. As it stands “Sky Captain” is an average film that could have been much better with just a little more time in the hangar.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I sat down to write up my notes for the weekend's films and I had already forgotten this one. I quite enjoyed it and yet it hasn't really stuck with me at all.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Bad Frank (2017) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
I love it when a movie can come completely out of nowhere and surprise this humble reviewer. Bad Frank is exactly that, A movie that on paper looks and sounds like most other Kidnap Revenge thrillers you may have seen over the years. But let me tell you that Bad Frank is far from some of the copy and paste garbage out there.
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
I was instantly drawn to this Flick after stumbling upon its Twitter page and hey full disclosure I saw Tom Sizemore and Brian O’Halloran and thought ‘Okay, Im in’. Little did I know that after contacting the movies director I was about to watch a somewhat by the numbers movie that takes all of the numbers and turns them on there head with a great tightly written script and one hell of a powerhouse performance (not by either of the two men I named above by the way).
Bad Frank is about a man named ummmm Frank. Frank (played by Kevin Interdonato) is a seemingly normal guy living a seemingly normal existence. He seems to have it all, but you can tell right from the outset that the man has got some demons. We learn that he is on some serious medication to deal with his head aches from a life of regrets, He is estranged from both his mum and dad and struggling to keep his marriage together. Frank is pulled into an easy money job by his buddy Travis (Brandon Heitkamp) who is in deep to Donny Shakes (O’Halloran). What is promised to be a quick job brings Frank face to face with an old acquaintance he would rather forget. Things really go sideways on the job and in turn his life, when Franks wife Gina (Amanda Clayton) is kidnapped by face from the past Mickey Duro (Sizemore). I am gonna stop plot wise now because anymore and I am giving too much away.
Tony Germinario has pulled an absolute stormer out of the bag for his debut feature length movie, a fact that was completely lost on me upon viewing. For a budget of roughly 80k he has used all tricks at his disposal to make it look like a multi million dollar flick and Bad Frank looks all the more impressive for it. A lot of the time a the script to a movie like this can get lost in its own simplicity but Tony wrote a script that really didnt conform to what I was expecting and gave the lead a chance to deliver. So lets just talk about the lead, Kevin Interdonato brings an absolute realism and intensity to this role that sucks you right in and leaves you kinda second guessing yourself, anything could happen with this guy at any moment and that to me is scary. I went from feeling sorry for this guy to thinking well he deserved everything and ending up thinking ‘SHIT’.
Tom Sizemore is in fine form as Sizemore always is. An actor that I personally love and wish got more of the beefier roles but it was great to see him on screen and like I say, seeing his name splashed on the poster was one of the reasons I sought this one out. Then there is Brian O’Halloran doing his thing as he does (always liked this dude since his Clerks days nice to see him spreading his wings).
It is easy to see how Tony and his crew took Bad Frank to Film Fest International in London last week and was not only nominated for 5 awards but Tony himself won Best Director.
I am gonna recommend the shit out of this Flick, Bad Frank is not what you expect going in, there are some pretty cool curve-balls, it moves along at a quick enough pace and no spoilers but the final 10 minutes are a Tour-De-Force. Performances wise you are getting more bang for you buck in what the Director himself considers to be an “as Indie as it gets” movie (not that you can tell mind you).
