Search
Search results
Merissa (11716 KP) created a post
Feb 6, 2024
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated House of Salem (2016) in Movies
Nov 1, 2021 (Updated Nov 3, 2021)
House of Salem is directed by James Crow and is a British occult horror that takes the viewer on a journey to a house that has a terrifying history. When kidnappers snatch Josh (played by newcomer Liam Kelly) from his home in the dead of night, they head to a safe house to await the delivery of their ransom money.
House of Salem isn’t the best horror you’ll see, but it’s certainly not the worst.
House of Salem isn’t the best horror you’ll see, but it’s certainly not the worst.
Chloe (778 KP) rated Made In Italy (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Setting (1 more)
Liam Neeson
Obvious plot (2 more)
Over produced
Bad script
Obvious from the outset
So I understand this is James D'Arcys debut film. The setting was stunning and I liked the general plot, despite it being very obvious.
The reveal of one of the main plot points was done dismissively and quickly. The actors and actresses did well in their roles but the script was poor.
Time was spent on stupid cinematography rather than developing character e.g. there's an eating scene where the camera switches between the characters for far too long, this adds very little to the plot.
The reveal of one of the main plot points was done dismissively and quickly. The actors and actresses did well in their roles but the script was poor.
Time was spent on stupid cinematography rather than developing character e.g. there's an eating scene where the camera switches between the characters for far too long, this adds very little to the plot.
Lindsay (1693 KP) rated Rookie Privateer (Privateer Tales #1) in Books
Jul 1, 2019
If you are looking for a good space adventure. Rookie Privateer is one for those young adults to teens. It about a group of kids. Well one teen that is looking for his future. He is currently stuck working with his father. He know not much to making money.
He seem to attract attention when something happens when he with is friends. What happens then goes not to be an adventure for him and his friend. Liam want freedom will get it? His friend Nick is set up for life. They are becoming Earth Mars Citizens. Someone or something is attacking their home. Will Liam reach the stars or will he not. He and Nick will they find out what the real world has to offer. Things begin to change and it changes them as well.
Find out how this book end. The authors does really well on the plot of this story. It bring you along for the ride. I could not stop reading and wanted more. What will happen to Nick James and Liam Hoffen? I hope to find out more by reading the next book. I just got to find out when it will be out. Great for teens and young adult readers. If you are into space or thrillers this really good for you as well.
He seem to attract attention when something happens when he with is friends. What happens then goes not to be an adventure for him and his friend. Liam want freedom will get it? His friend Nick is set up for life. They are becoming Earth Mars Citizens. Someone or something is attacking their home. Will Liam reach the stars or will he not. He and Nick will they find out what the real world has to offer. Things begin to change and it changes them as well.
Find out how this book end. The authors does really well on the plot of this story. It bring you along for the ride. I could not stop reading and wanted more. What will happen to Nick James and Liam Hoffen? I hope to find out more by reading the next book. I just got to find out when it will be out. Great for teens and young adult readers. If you are into space or thrillers this really good for you as well.
David McK (3204 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Dec 18, 2019
Remake/reimagining of the 1981 original, I remember the big thing about this at the time as the special effects. Or, rather, the post-production 3D effects added released, as this was, only a few short years after James Cameras na exceptional 'Avatar'. Whereas 'Avatar', however, was filmed specifically in and for 3D, this film owes more of a debt to the older 1980s 3D films: watching this in 2D it's quite obvious to see what scenes were added specifically for the effects (I'm thinking mainly of the attack of the giant scorpions, or the Kraken at the end),
Starring Sam Worthingon - whatever happened to him? - as Perseus, the plot of this obviously takes inspiration from Greek myths, even down to having Liam Neeson playing the part of Zeus himself, and of the Pegasus.
Starring Sam Worthingon - whatever happened to him? - as Perseus, the plot of this obviously takes inspiration from Greek myths, even down to having Liam Neeson playing the part of Zeus himself, and of the Pegasus.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Krull (1983) in Movies
Apr 13, 2020
Daft but charming sword-and-sorcery adventure, one of the more distinctive products of the early 80s fantasy boom. The planet Krull (a generic fantasyland) is invaded by vaguely Giger-esque alien conquerors and rightful king Colwyn must go on a quest in search of a rather unwieldy magic weapon to save the galaxy (or something).
Looks good, and is helped along considerably by a slightly unhinged score from a young James Horner. One of the many fun things about it is the fact that ostensible hero Ken Marshall is, these days, one of the least well-known people in it - the lower reaches of the cast list are stuffed with well-known actors just starting out (Alun Armstrong, Robbie Coltrane, Liam Neeson). In the end the story is nothing very special - the usual quest for plot coupons - but it's played with gusto and very hard to dislike.
Looks good, and is helped along considerably by a slightly unhinged score from a young James Horner. One of the many fun things about it is the fact that ostensible hero Ken Marshall is, these days, one of the least well-known people in it - the lower reaches of the cast list are stuffed with well-known actors just starting out (Alun Armstrong, Robbie Coltrane, Liam Neeson). In the end the story is nothing very special - the usual quest for plot coupons - but it's played with gusto and very hard to dislike.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The creators of this remake of Clash of the Titans changed quite a few things from the original 1981 film. They perfected the special effects, lost all the campiness, but still failed to make an engaging film. Director Louis Leterrier, (Incredible Hulk, Danny the Dog) needs to find a way to redeem himself after this emotionless film.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Insurgent (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A little soulless
There hasn’t been a better time to be part of the Young Adult revolution. From Stephanie Meyer’s underwhelming Twilight saga to Suzanne Collins’ superb Huger Games trilogy and everything in between, there is something about this genre that audiences love to read and to watch.
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
Coming a little late to the party is Veronica Roth’s Divergent franchise. After last year’s bland debut, a new director in the shape of Robert Schwentke (Flightplan, Tattoo) takes on the second film in the series, Insurgent, but can it finally bring something to the table?
Insurgent continues the story of a post-apocalyptic America that has been divided into ‘factions’ based on the personality traits of survivors. Being placed in a faction helps you live your life in accordance with the rules of the governing body of the time. However, having traits belonging to all five categories makes you a Divergent – a risk to peace in other words.
This action sequel follows Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley) and Four Eaton (Theo James), two Divergents on the run from Kate Winslet’s domineering Jeanie Matthews as they try to find out the truth about who they are and what is really going on behind the scenes.
For the uninitiated, Insurgent is a tiresome process and requires some prior knowledge of the first film to truly understand what is going on. However, in comparison to its dull and overly long predecessor, there is much to enjoy here.
The obliterated city of Chicago is given much more room to breathe and the beautifully choreographed shots of well-known landmarks draped in moss and ferns are a stunning addition and look much more realistic than the computer-generated imagery used for the Capitol in the Hunger Games series.
Moreover, there are some great acting performances scattered throughout, Woodley really gets her teeth stuck into the lead role after her disappointing turn in Divergent and Theo James provides the eye candy in a Liam Hemsworth-esque characterisation.
However, it is in Kate Winslet and newcomer Naomi Watts’ performances that we really see something special.
Despite their lack of screen time, they command each sequence they are a part of and it’s a shame they’re not used more throughout the near 2 hour runtime.
Unfortunately comparisons to other YA adaptations are unavoidable. Put Insurgent up against its main rival The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and the odds simply aren’t in its favour. The sheer star power the latter film commands is enviable and despite Winslet and Watts’ excellent performances, it just isn’t quite enough.
It all feels a little hollow, a bit flat and non-descript as the audience is thrown from one mildly entertaining set piece to another, right up until the obligatory gasps as you realise it’s another year to pick up where that cliff-hanger left things.
In the end, Insurgent improves on its overly convoluted predecessor and is much better than anything the Twilight saga threw at us, but it pales in comparison to the treat of watching ‘The Girl on Fire’ strut her stuff.
Alas, sitting in the middle isn’t quite enough in this highly competitive genre and despite some stunning cinematography and great acting, Insurgent feels a little soulless.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/22/a-little-soulless-insurgent-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018) in Movies
Jan 10, 2019 (Updated Jan 10, 2019)
A winning anthology
I am NOT a Coen Brothers apologist. For every good/great film that they have made (like FARGO, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN or underrated THE HUDSUCKER PROXY) there are duds/movies that didn't work for me (like O' BROTHER WHER ART THOU, INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS and the movie I ranked as the worst film of 2016, HAIL, CAESAR). So when I heard that the latest Coen Brothers flick was going straight to Netflix AND (like HAIL, CAESAR), it was a film anthology of 6 short stories, I dragged my feet in checking this out.
But...I am glad I finally got around to it...for THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS is a strong film, taking on a heavy subject (death) in a variety of ways - light-hearted, poignant and deadly (pun intended) serious. The tone of this film - or, more accurately, these 6 short films - worked for me and I felt they wove together very well to tell an overarching story of man's relationship with death - as seen through the eyes of Wild, Wild West characters.
And what characters they are! From Tim Blake Nelson's titular character, Buster Scruggs, to James Franco's hapless (but lucky) Outlaw to Liam Neeson's traveling theatrical show to Tom Waite's grizzled prospector to Zoe Kazan's lonesome Prairie Widow to the group of passengers on the Stagecoach in the last vignette, all are interesting to watch, and listen to.
Credit, of course, needs to go to Joel and Ethan Cohen. These characters are interesting to watch, because these two put wonderful scenes and scenery up on the screen with dialogue (or lack of dialogue) that perfectly reflects what is going on and what the characters are feeling. In my opinion, the Coen Brothers are at their best when they focus on gritty subjects with poignancy (BARTON FINK) but fail when they try to get "wacky" or "over-serious" (BURN AFTER READING, A SERIOUS MAN), this film is full of the former and has very little of the latter.
I'm sure, like all Coen Brothers films, that this anthology of short films is not for everyone - and not every film will work for everyone - but they did for me. I thought each short film was the better than the one before it. I caught the vibe of what the Coen's were after and I fell under their spell.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...I am glad I finally got around to it...for THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS is a strong film, taking on a heavy subject (death) in a variety of ways - light-hearted, poignant and deadly (pun intended) serious. The tone of this film - or, more accurately, these 6 short films - worked for me and I felt they wove together very well to tell an overarching story of man's relationship with death - as seen through the eyes of Wild, Wild West characters.
And what characters they are! From Tim Blake Nelson's titular character, Buster Scruggs, to James Franco's hapless (but lucky) Outlaw to Liam Neeson's traveling theatrical show to Tom Waite's grizzled prospector to Zoe Kazan's lonesome Prairie Widow to the group of passengers on the Stagecoach in the last vignette, all are interesting to watch, and listen to.
Credit, of course, needs to go to Joel and Ethan Cohen. These characters are interesting to watch, because these two put wonderful scenes and scenery up on the screen with dialogue (or lack of dialogue) that perfectly reflects what is going on and what the characters are feeling. In my opinion, the Coen Brothers are at their best when they focus on gritty subjects with poignancy (BARTON FINK) but fail when they try to get "wacky" or "over-serious" (BURN AFTER READING, A SERIOUS MAN), this film is full of the former and has very little of the latter.
I'm sure, like all Coen Brothers films, that this anthology of short films is not for everyone - and not every film will work for everyone - but they did for me. I thought each short film was the better than the one before it. I caught the vibe of what the Coen's were after and I fell under their spell.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars out of 10 and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)