Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Warner Brothers movie San Andreas stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as Chief Ray Gaines, Carla Gugino as Emma Gaines, Alexandra Daddario as their daughter Blake Gaines, Paul Giamatti as scientist Lawrence, Ioan Gruffudd as Daniel (Emma’s new love interest, as she & Chief Gaines are about to finalize their divorce), and Archie Panjabi as Serena, a reporter.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games (2012) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Director Gary Ross had his work cut out trying to create a film which brought to life the startling realism of Suzanne Collins’ successful trilogy of novels and here we have the first, The Hunger Games.
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
This film has come at a time where movie fans have been released from the clawing hooks of the Harry Potter franchise and the finale of the Twilight Saga is now on the horizon. Some would say, it’s the perfect time to begin a new franchise and for the most part, they’re right. Move over witches and vampires, there’s a new, more mature kid ready to take your crowns.
I for one went into The Hunger Games trilogy blindfolded. I have not read the books so this review is purely based on the film I saw before me and I must say; I was mightily impressed.
The film is set some way in the future and the world is a much different place; in a place called Panem (a post-apocalyptic North America) is where we find 12 Districts full of variety with different races living alongside each other, just as we have today. However, there is a more sinister side to things as we learn that once a year; The Hunger Games tournament takes place.
For those of you not familiar with the event itself, here’s a brief description. Each year, one boy and one girl aged between 12 and 18 from each district fights to the death until there is one winner, showered with riches for the remainder of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence of X-Men First Class fame stars as Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young girl brought up in the coal mining community of District 12. After her young sister is picked to represent District 12, she decides the only thing to do is nominate herself and save her from certain death. Her male counterpart is Peeta Mellark played by a mature looking Josh Hutcherson of Journey to the Centre of the Earth fame.
Once the pair have been selected, they are taken to Capitol, a city brimming with the wealthy, a stark contrast to the coal mining community our District 12 heroes come from. Woody Harrelson stars as a previous winner of the games and the District 12 mentor, he takes it upon himself to train the ‘tributes’ and prepare them for the task ahead.
Once in battle, all chaos ensues and this is where the film begins to partially unravel. The actors and actresses all do excellent jobs, in particular Lawrence plays Katniss exceptionally well, her soft side comes through but you never forget her harsher, hunter like persona. Unfortunately, the action is held back by the ridiculous 12A certification the film has been lumbered with. It has become the case, as with The Woman in Black earlier this year that films based on best-selling and well known books or with teen stars have to be given this frankly dire classification. The violence is toned down to such a level that it becomes unrealistic and from what I have read, The Hunger Games is a much more brutal and unforgiving experience as a novel.
Other negatives include some shoddy CGI and too much hand based camera work, the battles at the beginning of the games are messy and not enjoyable to sit through. It’s a disappointing lapse in a film which is actually very good indeed.
Thankfully, the lengthy running time allows the final third to pick up nicely to leave you with a lasting impression.
The Hunger Games had the unenviable task of being on the receiving end of comparisons to Harry Potter and the Twilight franchises, and to an extent it has done its source material proud. Does it live up to the much-loved world of Hogwarts? Probably not. Does it live up to the lust and romance of the Twilight Saga? Most definitely. It sits, right smack in the middle and that’s not a bad place to be.
Gary Ross has produced a fine blockbuster with excellent performances from the cast and some fabulous design choices. Yes, it’s a little too long, there are some shoddy special effects and the character development lacks depth, but for fans of the series and newcomers alike, it moves the game on and is an enjoyable experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/04/05/the-hunger-games-2012-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Apr 2, 2020
Decent but Definitely the Worst of the Trilogy
Narcotics detectives Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) are back getting into a heap of shit as they try and take down an ecstasy ring.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Acting: 9
You have to love the performances of Lawrence and Smith as they know how to carry a movie between the two of them. Their chemistry is amazing and they do a wonderful job of balancing each other out, particularly in this film were Smith is more of a shoot-first type while Lawrence’s role is about finding peace and zen. Joe Pantoliano makes a return as Captain Howard, making me crack up everytime he opens his mouth to yell at Lowrey and Burnett for screwing up yet again.
The one role I just couldn’t let sneak past was Jordi Molla playing Johnny Tapia. Terrible doesn’t even begin to describe his performance. It feels too cliche and way overdone, detracting from important scenes at times. Wasn’t a fan in the slightest.
Beginning: 7
While I did appreciate the action at the beginning of the movie, there was just too much going on for me to really settle in and get into it. It’s hard to really understand up from down in the first ten minutes which carries on as the movie progresses as well. Less can be more sometimes, but it feels like in this instance, director Michael Bay called for more of everything.
Characters: 9
Cinematography/Visuals: 6
Bad Boys II has its moments cinematically. The mortuary scene and the scene in the abandoned house are two that really stand out for me. They were shot in such a way that they are hard to forget. From an overall standpoint, I am not a fan of the overdose of slowmo that Bay loves to do. It becomes tedious to the brain and drags the movie out longer than it needs to be. And this movie already has enough time constraints as it is.
Conflict: 10
Action abounds in this second installment from shootouts to car chases to explosions on top of explosions. If you are an action junky, this movie will not disappoint. As much as I rag on Bay (and, no he’s not my favorite director), he knows how to make a scene pop and make traditional action sets feel extremely original. Even as I’m typing this, I can’t forget the highway scene where the bad guys have hijacked a car-carrying truck and they start to release the cars as they speed down the highway. It’s absolute calamity.
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 8
Pace: 7
Bay does his best to keep things fresh, but it’s hard to hide from the fact that this is all about action then dialogue then right back to action. It gets a bit repetitive at times, but I will also admit that it may have something to do with the fact that I’ve watched a shit ton of movies recently (what else is new?). When Cuba gets mentioned and you realize the movie is only two thirds of the way over when it should be finished, that’s when things really slowed down for me even more. You can absolutely cut thirty minutes from this movie and it would be phenomenal, possibly a classic.
Plot: 6
Decent enough story, but nothing that’s going to win an Oscar. I felt corners were cut in spots as there were times where I was trying to figure out, “Why the hell is this happening now?” I also didn’t appreciate some of the cheats, which is a term I use to refer to spots in the movie that conveniently happen for the sake of it being a good scene. Again, cut a half hour of this movie and I might be feeling differently overall.
Resolution: 4
The end was not only mad corny, but it didn’t feel like a real resolution. Not sure what they were going for here, but it didn’t work. The end didn’t really justify the length of what it took to get there.
Overall: 73
I know I know. You read through this review and it almost sounds like I hated Bad Boys II. Truth is, it wasn’t terrible. Would it be the first action movie I recommend? Absolutely not. On the flipside, I can definitely think of many that were worse. At the risk of losing all credibility (as if I had any to begin with), I actually enjoyed this movie more than I did The French Connection. Fight me.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated House of Dracula (1945) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Get The Gang All Together: The Crossover II
House of Dracula- was a direct sequel to House of Frankenstein, and continued the theme of combining Universal's three most popular monsters: Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange), Count Dracula (John Carradine), and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.).
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
The plot: This monster movie focuses on the iconic vampire, Count Dracula (John Carradine), and Lawrence Talbot (Lon Chaney), better known as the Wolf Man. Both beings of the night are tired of their supernatural afflictions, so they seek out Dr. Franz Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) for cures for their respective curses. While trying to aid the imposing creatures, Edelmann himself develops a transformative condition, adding to the many ghouls lurking around the foreboding landscape.
The working titles for the film were Dracula vs. the Wolf Man or The Wolf Man vs. Dracula.
Although Glenn Strange appears as the Monster in most of the film, footage of Chaney as the Monster from The Ghost of Frankenstein and Boris Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein was recycled; Karloff appears in a dream sequence, while Chaney, as well as his double Eddie Parker, are seen in footage in a fire scene.
Strange recounts that a scene with the Monster stuck in quicksand was particularly arduous for him. On top of three hours of getting into makeup, Strange spent the rest of the day buried in cold sand, including during the lunch break, and was so cold by midafternoon that he could barely feel his legs. Lon Chaney Jr. attempted to help Strange keep warm by passing him a bottle of scotch, with the result that Strange was so drunk that after getting out of costume and makeup, he had difficulty dressing himself in his street clothes. Chaney's drinking contributed to his reputation as being difficult to work with, and probably was the reason Universal let him go after the film was completed.
The film, which was the seventh Universal film to feature Frankenstein's monster, as well as the fourth with Count Dracula and the Wolf Man, was a commercial success, but was one of the last Universal movies featuring Frankenstein's monster, vampires, and werewolves, with the exception of the comedy Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948), in which all three appear.
Its a fun entertaing horror film starring the universal monsters.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) in Movies
Feb 13, 2022
Good Performances, Thin Script
Jessica Chastain is, in my opinion - and with all apologies to Glenn Close - the best actress working today that has yet to win an Academy Award. Having been nominated twice previously (Supporting Actress for THE HELP in 2012 and Actress for ZERO DARKY THIRTY in 2013 - a performance I thought she was a shoo-in Oscar winner for, she would lose to Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), Chastain has earned her 3rd Oscar nomination for portraying Tammy Faye Bakker in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. It would be absurdly bizarre if THIS was the role she would win for.
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Good Lord! How much sex and violence is acceptable for a UK-15 film?
I recognise that it’s a “thing” that I get into periodic ‘ruts’ of ranting about particular aspects of cinema. But it’s not spoilers in trailers this time! No, the most recent rut I’ve been in is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the BBFC’s rating of UK 15-certificate films, which seems to have been the rating of every cinema film I’ve seen recently! In my view both “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” should both have firmly been 12A’s to attract a broader teenage audience. But here’s a case on the other side of the balance.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Bad Boys for Life (2020) in Movies
Jan 18, 2020
Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatchu gonna do? Whatchu gonna do when they come for you? Bad Boys premiered in 1995, the sequel way back in 2003. Bad Boys for Life, the third movie in the franchise takes us back to Miami, where Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) and Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) have been partners in the force for over 25 years.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
Marcus certainly is feeling his age, having been married with grown kids, and Mike is still ready to go and take down criminals with his own style. Marcus is eyeing retirement and his partner Lowrey, does not want any part of it. They are going by the motto of “Bad Boys for Life”. Captain Howard (Joe Pantoliano) is still running the precinct and a new tactical team has been established to carry out quick responses. This small team is led by Rita (Paola Nunez) who has had some history with Mike Lowrey.
Rita’s team is comprised by Kelly (Vanessa Hudgens) the team badass. Rafe (Charles Melton) the resident smart ass who immediately chafes Mike’s hide and Dorn (Alexander Ludwig), the IT specialist and gentle giant. It is as if the recruiter got Rafe and Dorn from an Abercrombie catalogue. They are AMMO, the rapid response team assigned to take on immediate issues that affect Miami.
The current problem is an assassin taking out members of Miami’s law enforcement community. We learn that there is a Mexican drug cartel looking for retribution and it is led by Isabel Aretas, the widow of the Kingpin (Kate de Castillo, playing the character with such seething hatred) and her son Armando (Jacob Scipio)
Bad Boys 3 is co-directed by the team of Adil and Bilall, who have worked together on film for the past ten years. Taking over the franchise from Michael Bay. There are plenty of chases and gunfights in the movie. The action is fantastic, the rapport between Marcus and Lowrey is just plain hilarious. The chemistry of their partnership is still there, and their timing is on point. I did not expect to laugh so hard or so much.
The movie took a minute to find it’s pacing at the beginning. Once the story was set, the timing was quick, but steady and the humor came on one after another. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, it had all the elements that I would have expected from a Bad Boys sequel: a logical story line, action, humor, eye candy and car chases. I would recommend this movie for anyone who wants to lose themselves in an action film with a large side order of humor.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Water for Elephants (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The future is bright with promise for Jacob, a Cornell veterinary sciences student, ready to graduate and follow in his father’s footsteps. But after a series of unfortunate events, Jacob finds himself a college dropout, homeless and penniless. He sets out to find work and stows away on a passing train which turns out to be the Benzini Brothers Circus train.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Jacob appeals to the vanity of the heartless circus owner and ringmaster, August, convincing him to keep him on as the circus veterinary doctor. One of his first patients is the horse of the circus’ star attraction, Marlena, who also happens to be August’s wife. When Marlena’s horse is replaced by an elephant, Jacob is made responsible for the elephant’s care and training. This gives Marlena and Jacob a common ally in Rosie, the elephant, and a common enemy in an increasingly violent August. Cue the furtive glances, the stilted conversations and awkward moments that signal the start of the mutual attraction between Marlena and Jacob.
While Jacob, Marlena and August form the romantic triangle that drives the story, it’s Rosie and the circus backdrop that provide the more entertaining aspects of the movie. Director Francis Lawrence (Constantine and I Am Legend) pays decent attention to period detail, highlighting the desperation and brutality of The Great Depression while romanticizing the ephemeral circus life and the subversive lifestyles enjoyed in defiance of The Prohibition. Sadly they were just quick peeks into a curious world.
Based on a best-selling novel of the same name by Sara Gruen, Water for Elephants is a sweet tale told in retrospect by a 90-something-year old Jacob, played by a wistful Hal Holbrook. Robert Pattinson plays young Jacob capably, and I have no doubt his fans will swoon at the many close ups of his brooding stare, pained grimaces and the occasional delighted smile. While this character gives him a few more lines than his more well-known role as Edward, the tortured vampire of the Twilight saga, it was difficult to watch him and not see the similarities in how he portrays Jacob and Edward. Reese Witherspoon’s Marlena was in turns adequately fragile and sufficiently steely. With negligible chemistry, Pattinson and Witherspoon’s performances paled in comparison to that of Christoph Waltz whose sadistic August was played with cunning zeal.
A carefully told story, Water for Elephants is however too carefully told, in a predictable, pedantic pace. However, fans of Pattinson will not be disappointed.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Wheel of Osheim in Books
May 23, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
The conclusion of the Red Queen's War trilogy is a significant improvement over the previous book, The Liar's Key. Though again this is a book of two halves: the first half following Jalan as he travels home from the Afriquan desert and is tasked with defending his home city from invasion; the second half sees him meet up with old friends and travel back to the eponymous Wheel to try and halt mankind's destruction and stop "the wheel" from turning.
I loved the first half of this book - Jalan is a much easier character to like/put up with on his own, and the city defence against siege was some of the most enjoyable of Lawrence's work, for me.
The second half was a definite nose-dive. Jalan goes back to being an insufferable coward (and given his companions say and do very little this makes these scenes quite a trudge). And it seems as if this was the chance to suddenly explain the point of the earlier "companion" Broken Empire trilogy and cram in loads of science and philosophy. Suddenly we went from knowing next to nothing but occasional hints to being repeatedly told what had happened 1100 years ago and what is still happening. And then in the last few pages, all back to normal, having no idea what was real or not.
At the end of The Liar's Key, I had such anticipation for this book: Jalan and Snorri entering Hell to try and bring back Snorri's family. This became such a massive anti-climax - the whole journey through Hell was covered in about 20 pages total and nothing of any import happened at all. It was a complete let-down.
One of the standout aspects of The Broken Empire trilogy was how two different timelines were maintained and meshed together beautifully at the perfect pace. Here we have an element of that, but Lawrence seems to feel the need to have a reason for Jalan to be experiencing the other timeline (in Liar's Key is was due to a magic spell which had unexpected recurring side-effects, here it is either through having flashbacks at inappropriate times or being told a story by Snorri) - it just totally jars when this suddenly has to happen.
The conclusion of the book I found very unsatisfying - too many key events/characters/plot points were suddenly thrown into one room fighting for attention and resolution - and what were meant to be epic foes to be bested were defeated fairly easily. And then the actual climax - a complete load of philosophical nonsense completely unravelling everything (not in a "woah, that blew my mind" way, more of a "well, what was the point then and what about ... ").
Overall a mostly great book but with some downright annoying aspects and a deeply unsatisfactory ending.
I loved the first half of this book - Jalan is a much easier character to like/put up with on his own, and the city defence against siege was some of the most enjoyable of Lawrence's work, for me.
The second half was a definite nose-dive. Jalan goes back to being an insufferable coward (and given his companions say and do very little this makes these scenes quite a trudge). And it seems as if this was the chance to suddenly explain the point of the earlier "companion" Broken Empire trilogy and cram in loads of science and philosophy. Suddenly we went from knowing next to nothing but occasional hints to being repeatedly told what had happened 1100 years ago and what is still happening. And then in the last few pages, all back to normal, having no idea what was real or not.
At the end of The Liar's Key, I had such anticipation for this book: Jalan and Snorri entering Hell to try and bring back Snorri's family. This became such a massive anti-climax - the whole journey through Hell was covered in about 20 pages total and nothing of any import happened at all. It was a complete let-down.
One of the standout aspects of The Broken Empire trilogy was how two different timelines were maintained and meshed together beautifully at the perfect pace. Here we have an element of that, but Lawrence seems to feel the need to have a reason for Jalan to be experiencing the other timeline (in Liar's Key is was due to a magic spell which had unexpected recurring side-effects, here it is either through having flashbacks at inappropriate times or being told a story by Snorri) - it just totally jars when this suddenly has to happen.
The conclusion of the book I found very unsatisfying - too many key events/characters/plot points were suddenly thrown into one room fighting for attention and resolution - and what were meant to be epic foes to be bested were defeated fairly easily. And then the actual climax - a complete load of philosophical nonsense completely unravelling everything (not in a "woah, that blew my mind" way, more of a "well, what was the point then and what about ... ").
Overall a mostly great book but with some downright annoying aspects and a deeply unsatisfactory ending.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Dec 2, 2019 (Updated Jan 13, 2020)
With the (eventually true) whispers about the Disney-Fox merger doing the rounds around Dark Phoenix's release, it arrived to little fanfare. Most people had already written off as a pointless film, and it was a prime target for negativity. So much so, that it was actually the first and only X-Men film I ended up missing in the cinema.
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...
I recently watched it on home release, really not expecting much. After the swing-and-a-miss of Apocalypse, I wasn't feeling too invested in the characters.
So imagine my surprise when I remained glued to the screen for most of the runtime.
Dark Phoenix isn't perfect by any means, and far from the lofty heights of the top tier X-Men movies, buts it no where near as awful as I had heard.
I thought the story was actually ok. I was glad that it partially took place in space, like the original comic, and unlike The Last Stand.
Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy are fantastic as they usually are, as is Nicholas Hoult. I also thing Jennifer Lawrence I makes a good Mystique, even though I'm still not a massive fan of this franchises portrayal of her character.
Ty Sheridan and Sophie Turner are given more to do this time around, and are both fine. It's a shame that Evan Peters' Quicksilver is sidelined for this particular adventure.
There are some genuinely powerful emotional beats throughout the film, and it's clear as day that all the actors involved care about their characters, and are having fun.
My main criticism is predictably the villains. The D'bari are a fairly uninspired choice for such a big storyline, and they look like generic CGI aliens. I found Jessica Chastain quite wooden and uninteresting, and they made for a very underwhelming force if evil.
The main focus of Dark Phoenix is of course in Jean Grey's turn to the dark side, so vanilla bad guys shouldn't really be that important anyway.
Dark Phoenix does a slightly better job than The Last Stand of adapting this beloved storyline, but so can't help but feel that it would benefit from multiple movies, instead of cramming into one feature, a I really hope that's something that happens going into the MCU with these characters.
We still have New Mutants to go (if it ever actually comes out) but as a last main entry into the FOX X-Men franchise, you could do a lot worse. It's not the best, it's not the worst. Dark Phoenix sits somewhere quite comfortably in the middle.
Dare I say, I think it might actually be better than the first film...