Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Not The Best In The Series But A Good Farewell
Angel Has Fallen is a 2019 action/thriller movie directed by Ric Roman Waugh with screenplay written by Waugh, Robert Mark Kamen and Matt Cook from story by Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt. Producers on the film included Gerard Butler, Alan Siegel, Matt O'Toole, John Thompson, Les Weldon, and Yariv Lerner. It was produced by Millennium Media, G-Base and distributed by Lionsgate. The film stars Gerard Butler, Morgan Freeman, Jada Pinkett Smith, Piper Perabo, and Lance Reddick.
Undergoing training at a private military facility, Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) finds himself hiding the fact that he's suffering from migraines, insomnia and self-medicating to deal with severe back pain. He is nominated by the President Alan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman), for the position of Secret Service Director to replace retiring Director David Gentry (Lance Reddick). An assassination attempt occurs during the President's fishing trip and his security detail is killed by armed drones, leaving only himself and Banning the sole survivors. Banning is arrested by FBI Agent Helen Thompson (Jada Pinkett Smith) after finding substantial evidence that Banning is responsible for the attack. After escaping from his captors Banning must evade his own agency and the FBI to find the real threat to the President. To save the country from imminent danger he must turn to unlikely allies and uncover the truth to clear his name.
This movie was all over the place but it was good. I think i liked it better than the last one which was London Has Fallen, but not as much as the original movie Olympus Has Fallen. It was refreshing to see Gerard Butler's character Mike Banning humanized a bit in this film. The plot was a little predictable but I enjoyed the whole man on the run while trying to still do his job angle to it. Like I said the movie was kind of all over the place and didn't have the action scenes as tight as in the other films especially in the middle of the movie but it didn't matter too much overall. Fairly entertaining, it was a good movie to end the summer action movies off with. I give it a 7/10.
Undergoing training at a private military facility, Secret Service agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) finds himself hiding the fact that he's suffering from migraines, insomnia and self-medicating to deal with severe back pain. He is nominated by the President Alan Trumbull (Morgan Freeman), for the position of Secret Service Director to replace retiring Director David Gentry (Lance Reddick). An assassination attempt occurs during the President's fishing trip and his security detail is killed by armed drones, leaving only himself and Banning the sole survivors. Banning is arrested by FBI Agent Helen Thompson (Jada Pinkett Smith) after finding substantial evidence that Banning is responsible for the attack. After escaping from his captors Banning must evade his own agency and the FBI to find the real threat to the President. To save the country from imminent danger he must turn to unlikely allies and uncover the truth to clear his name.
This movie was all over the place but it was good. I think i liked it better than the last one which was London Has Fallen, but not as much as the original movie Olympus Has Fallen. It was refreshing to see Gerard Butler's character Mike Banning humanized a bit in this film. The plot was a little predictable but I enjoyed the whole man on the run while trying to still do his job angle to it. Like I said the movie was kind of all over the place and didn't have the action scenes as tight as in the other films especially in the middle of the movie but it didn't matter too much overall. Fairly entertaining, it was a good movie to end the summer action movies off with. I give it a 7/10.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back (1980) in Movies
May 6, 2020 (Updated May 6, 2020)
May The Force Be With You: The Middle
Empire Strikes Back- i heard that this movie is peoples, all time greatest/best sequel and the best movie out of the oringal trilogy. To me, no. Episode 4 and 6 are better. Their are excellent sences like.. the battle at Hoth, when Han gets Frozen and the battle between Dark Vader and Luke. The rest of the movie is slow and boring.
The plot: The adventure continues in this "Star Wars" sequel. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) face attack by the Imperial forces and its AT-AT walkers on the ice planet Hoth. While Han and Leia escape in the Millennium Falcon, Luke travels to Dagobah in search of Yoda. Only with the Jedi master's help will Luke survive when the dark side of the Force beckons him into the ultimate duel with Darth Vader (David Prowse).
To me their are better movie sequels than this one like.. "Back To The Future Part II", "Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers", "The Dark Knight", "Captain America: The Winter Soilder", "Toy Story 2", "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" and "Aliens". All of these sequels are 10x better than Empire Strikes Back.
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains:
Darth Vader – No. 3 Villain
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes:
"I am your father." – Nominated
"Do, or do not. There is no try." – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th
Anniversary Edition) – Nominated.
Darth Vader was ranked as the third-greatest film villain of all time in the American Film Institute's 2003 list of the 100 greatest heroes and villains, and Wizard magazine selected the ending of The Empire Strikes Back as the greatest cliffhanger of all time.
The line "No, I am your father" is often misquoted as "Luke, I am your father." The line was selected as one of the 400 nominees for the American Film Institute's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes, a list of the greatest American film quotes.
I think Empire Strikes Back, even though its good. Its overrated and hyped up, to the point were its not just not as good as people say it is.
Like i said its good, but not excellent.
The plot: The adventure continues in this "Star Wars" sequel. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), Han Solo (Harrison Ford), Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher) and Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew) face attack by the Imperial forces and its AT-AT walkers on the ice planet Hoth. While Han and Leia escape in the Millennium Falcon, Luke travels to Dagobah in search of Yoda. Only with the Jedi master's help will Luke survive when the dark side of the Force beckons him into the ultimate duel with Darth Vader (David Prowse).
To me their are better movie sequels than this one like.. "Back To The Future Part II", "Lord of The Rings: The Two Towers", "The Dark Knight", "Captain America: The Winter Soilder", "Toy Story 2", "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" and "Aliens". All of these sequels are 10x better than Empire Strikes Back.
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Thrills – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains:
Darth Vader – No. 3 Villain
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes:
"I am your father." – Nominated
"Do, or do not. There is no try." – Nominated
AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th
Anniversary Edition) – Nominated.
Darth Vader was ranked as the third-greatest film villain of all time in the American Film Institute's 2003 list of the 100 greatest heroes and villains, and Wizard magazine selected the ending of The Empire Strikes Back as the greatest cliffhanger of all time.
The line "No, I am your father" is often misquoted as "Luke, I am your father." The line was selected as one of the 400 nominees for the American Film Institute's 100 Years... 100 Movie Quotes, a list of the greatest American film quotes.
I think Empire Strikes Back, even though its good. Its overrated and hyped up, to the point were its not just not as good as people say it is.
Like i said its good, but not excellent.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated A Cold Day in Hell in Books
Jan 29, 2018
Engaging characters (2 more)
Great courtroom scene
Strong female lead
Engaging debut mystery
Lauren Riley is a thirty-eight-year-old twice-divorced mother of two college age daughters, working cold case homicides. She has a great, younger cold case partner, Reese, and carries a torch for her ex-husband, Mark. Meanwhile, her ex, Joe Wheeler, is a Garden Valley homicide detective and a total (excuse my language) a-hole, who brazenly punches Lauren in the mouth after learning she's working against him on a case. Lauren's working two jobs -- her daytime gig on cold cases and also as a certified Private Investigator (PI). Lauren is hired by her nemesis, attorney Frank Violanti, to work the high-profile case of David, who is accused of murdering Katherine Vine, the beautiful, younger wife of Anthony Vine, who runs a successful chain of gyms. Lauren knows taking the case could stir up some issues in her department, with the DA, and with Reese. But in her gut, she feels that David is innocent. Can she and Frank make peace and prove it?
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
I read a lot of mysteries and while there are thankfully more strong female detectives coming on the scene (see Kristen Lepionka's Roxanne Weary and Emily Littlejohn's Gemma Monroe, for instance), they are still few and far between. While Lauren Riley may still be finding herself (there's a lot of side coverage of emotional entanglements and relationships here), I still love finding and championing a complicated, real, strong female detective.
Lauren's PI case is really the star of the show, and it's interesting and engaging throughout the entire novel. It keeps you guessing throughout, questioning whether David did it or not, and who else played a key role in Katherine and Anthony Vine lives. Nothing is cut or dried.
Also fascinating is Lauren's main cold case. While you could argue some of it ties up neatly, it doesn't go as expected, per se, if that makes sense, and the characters involved are intriguing and different. All the cases kept me interested as I read. A lot certainly happens in this novel, between Lauren's work and personal life. Nothing is boring, and there's never really a dull moment, especially once you get into the swing of things and realize that the book covers both her personal life and her work life in-depth. It also tells the story from more than Lauren's POV, even if she's the main focus, which works surprisingly well.
I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the book culminates in a trial related to Lauren's PI case, and it's a great, suspenseful, incredibly well-written piece of work. The courtroom scenes were so well-done and really had me on the edge of my seat. One of the things I loved about this novel was how I could so easily picture each of these characters-- each is well-described and fleshed out. Redmond writes darn good trial scenes (and a darn good book), and I was frantically flipping the pages to see how things would turn out.
It wasn't until I finished the book that I learned the author is a retired homicide detective, but it definitely shows as you read. The novel is written expertly in terms of police and courtroom procedure, but still enjoyable in terms of the characters. There is a lot of personal "stuff" in terms of Lauren; this will be a little different if you are used to the Bosch type of detective (the love of my life and my hero). Still, it's completely refreshing to see a complicated female lead detective, and, as mentioned, so nice to be reading more of these stories. I grew to really love Lauren.
The courtroom scenes are great, and a lot will keep you guessing. Sure, some of the cold cases wrap up what seem a little easily, but even Lauren addresses that as she works. I read some reviews that Joe Wheeler is a cliche character, and I guess I could see where people get that, but for me, society as of late seems to be showing us everyday that these sort of angry, abusive men truly exist. Everywhere. To me, Joe was a sadly realistic portrayal of a horrible man, and his slow, boiling anger only added to the tension of the entire novel.
Overall, I really enjoyed this one. It looks like it's going to be a series, and it ends with some unfinished issues that make me even more eager for book two.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Almost Christmas (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
It’s that time of year again, well maybe a little bit sooner than I would prefer because we haven’t hit thanksgiving yet. Holiday Season is here! So the attempts from the studios to get a piece of the holiday season box office. This new comedy from writer David E. Talbert (Baggage Claim) and producer Will Packer (Ride Along, Think Like a Man series, This Christmas), Almost Christmas, tells the story of a beloved patriarch, Walter, played by Danny Glover, a retired mechanic who owned a chain of auto shops and is now getting ready to spend the holiday with his four adult children and their families.
This year is the family’s first Christmas since the death of Walter’s wife, Grace, and the film flashes back to show us a beautiful 45 year relationship, that even when their home overflowed with children, they kept their love and affection.
Grace showed her dedication to Walter and the rest of her family with delicious recipes, especially her sweet potato pie.
Walter asks his family for one gift this holiday season to spend five days under the same roof without killing one another.
But later in the film you find out that the real drama is the rivalry between Rachel and Cheryl and the undergoing feud over each other’s life choices. Rachel (Gabrielle Union) a divorced mom, who after different career attempts, finally decided to become a law student; but unfortunately this last one made her financially unstable. Rachel’s overachieving big sister, Cheryl (Kimberly Elise) is always hiding her own insecurities and trying to control her obnoxious husband J.B. Smoove, and older retired athlete, who played basketball in Croatia in the 80’s, and considers himself a celebrity and an American hero.
Their brothers Christian (Romany Malco) is occupied with his congressional run, and Evan (Jessie Usher), the surprise baby of the family, is attempting to conquer a college football injury and secretly abusing of pain killers.
Finally we have aunt May (Mo’nique), who deserves a special mention for being extremely hilarious having a still-functioning career as a backup singer and in the past performed with Mick Jagger and Chaka Khan and now enjoys imparting all of her wisdom to her nieces, nephews and Walter.
The movie’s sibling dynamics feels authentic, with a relatable blend of rivalry, nostalgia, and dependence; Glover’s quest to perfect his wife’s signature dish will pull at anyone’s heartstrings.
It is surprisingly funny and hits it mark more than it misses. But it is not a secret that the major strength of this movie is its cast led by Danny Glover, and how we start to get too old for some shit, and an amazing team of charming actors and actresses that can transport you in the time with the right music and some dancing in the kitchen.
This year is the family’s first Christmas since the death of Walter’s wife, Grace, and the film flashes back to show us a beautiful 45 year relationship, that even when their home overflowed with children, they kept their love and affection.
Grace showed her dedication to Walter and the rest of her family with delicious recipes, especially her sweet potato pie.
Walter asks his family for one gift this holiday season to spend five days under the same roof without killing one another.
But later in the film you find out that the real drama is the rivalry between Rachel and Cheryl and the undergoing feud over each other’s life choices. Rachel (Gabrielle Union) a divorced mom, who after different career attempts, finally decided to become a law student; but unfortunately this last one made her financially unstable. Rachel’s overachieving big sister, Cheryl (Kimberly Elise) is always hiding her own insecurities and trying to control her obnoxious husband J.B. Smoove, and older retired athlete, who played basketball in Croatia in the 80’s, and considers himself a celebrity and an American hero.
Their brothers Christian (Romany Malco) is occupied with his congressional run, and Evan (Jessie Usher), the surprise baby of the family, is attempting to conquer a college football injury and secretly abusing of pain killers.
Finally we have aunt May (Mo’nique), who deserves a special mention for being extremely hilarious having a still-functioning career as a backup singer and in the past performed with Mick Jagger and Chaka Khan and now enjoys imparting all of her wisdom to her nieces, nephews and Walter.
The movie’s sibling dynamics feels authentic, with a relatable blend of rivalry, nostalgia, and dependence; Glover’s quest to perfect his wife’s signature dish will pull at anyone’s heartstrings.
It is surprisingly funny and hits it mark more than it misses. But it is not a secret that the major strength of this movie is its cast led by Danny Glover, and how we start to get too old for some shit, and an amazing team of charming actors and actresses that can transport you in the time with the right music and some dancing in the kitchen.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Quatermass Experiment (2005) in Movies
Sep 14, 2020
The first U.K. Maned mission to space vanishes off course only to return with two two of it's three crew missing and the third unable to communicate. As Professor Quatermass and his team try to find out what happened they discover that they come to realise that the rocket may have returned with more than they first thought.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
As remakes go This one is quite good, it follows the same basic script as the original and the modernisation (mostly) works. The film doesn't go for much in the way of monster effects, relying instead on building atmosphere and tension which helps it keep the feel of the original 1955 version. It also helps that the original writer, Nigel Kneale, was also consulted on this remake.
This version of the film does have a very (modern) British feel to it which is mostly from the fact that is was made by the BBC so has actors that have appeared in other BBC sic Fi shows, most noticeably David Tennant and Mark Gatiss.
I do have a couple of problems with this film though, firstly the main set, used though tout the first half of the film does look to much like a,well film set. The hospital ward, MoD offices and press conference room all appear to be in the same building and, in fact in one scene, the camera pans from one room to the next making the whole thing look as if it was set up in a warehouse or large stage, which it probability was for filming but you shouldn't realy notice that in the finished film.
The other issue was some of the costumes. The film seems to be set in time it was filmed (2007) but some of the costumes don't seem to fit. One reporter looks like a 'teddy boy' whilst one looks like she's from the 20's and there's a scene with 80's/90's looking goths (Yes I know there are still goths but the look has changed a bit through the decades, as with most looks).
I can't quite work out if the remake looses anything from the original, in some ways the threat seems bigger but the ending seems less climatic. The final scene takes place in an art gallery instead of a church but this is due to a slight change in some of the symbology in the film (and probably because the BBC have had complainants when they have blown up churches in the past).
The original had scenes that stuck with me ( I was quite young when i first saw it) and I feel that the remake doesn't have this effect, although that could just be my age now. However the remake does up the tension and it does feel that there is more riding on Quatermass' success
Apart from those points the film is good. Fans of the original will recognise it for what it is but new views won't need any knowledge of the original to watch it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 1, 2019
Entertaining Enough
In the battle of DC vs Marvel in the Cinematic world, the prevailing theory is that DC is "righting the ship" with back-to-back decent films - AQUAMAN and SHAZAM. And...after viewing both of these films, I will agree that they are moving the ship in the correct direction, but they have a long, long way to go before they can say they have "righted" this ship.
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SHAZAM is a fun. light, comedic-ish film that will appeal to kids and tweens and will be considered "not bad" by older teens and adults - and that is an improvement for a DC comic book film.
Asher Angel stars as Billy Batson, a troubled teenager with family/parental issues (is there any other kind in these types of films?) who is given the power of SHAZAM by a mysterious wizard (the always dependable Djimon Hounsou), when he says the magical word SHAZAM he is instantly changed into the SuperHero SHAZAM. The Superhero part of this character is played by Zachary Levi (TV's CHUCK) and that is the first problem for me with this film, I didn't feel that these 2 actors connected much to form the illusion of 1 person. Asher is all "broody and moody" - you know, the way an adult would direct a teenage actor to perform as a troubled teen - while Levi, who is having some fun, looks like he is trying just a bit too hard to showcase his "inner teenager" while wrapped inside a body hugging, muscle enhancing costume.
Billy Batson is sent to a foster home full of a "It's A Small World" group of troubled youth that have - despite their differences - formed into a family. Want to bet that Billy figures out that "family" does not mean his mother and father who abandoned him but rather those around you that love and care for you?
All of the kids in this "family" are well played, as are the "father and mother" figures. Standouts are Faithe Herman as smart-as-a-whip/cute-as-a-button Darla and, especially, Jack Dylan Grazer (hypochondriac Eddie in IT: CHAPTER 1) as the lad who becomes Billy's best friend. He is just as fun and charismatic as he was in IT. To be honest, I think I wanted more of a movie about this group of people than the typical "Super Hero/Super Villain" film.
However, I can forgive this film for focusing on the Hero/Villain dynamic for Mark Strong (SHERLOCK) is wonderfully villainous as the bad guy with daddy issues of his own and "that guy" actor John Glover is in it all too briefly as his dad.
Director David F. Sandberg (ANNABELLE: CREATION) does a nice job of keeping the action going at a fast enough pace to keep things entertaining - albeit in a way that was rather pedestrian and "nothing new". But he aims this film squarely at the older kid/younger tween audience and they will enjoy this very much, whilst the rest of us will not be bored as we accompany them.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated See how they run (2022) in Movies
Dec 8, 2022
Despite a miscast Sam Rockwell - it works well...enough
The British Comedy/Murder Mystery SEE HOW THEY RUN came and went in movie theaters (at least in the U.S.) pretty quickly last fall and, consequently, most folks missed that this was even a thing.
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The good news is that it is now streaming on multiple streaming services so as people gather for the Holidays there is a fun, family friendly (but good for adults) film that young and old alike could gather around the TV to watch together.
Written by Mark Chappell and Directed by Tom George (both of whom who have quite a few BBC TV Series under their belts, but it looks like this is the Major Motion Picture debut for them both), SEE HOW THEY RUN is a comedic look at the British Murder Mystery with a frumpy detective, a victim who “deserved it” and a plethora of potential suspects who are all brought into a room by the Detective on a “dark and stormy” night to reveal “whodunnit”.
Normally, with these types of films, it comes down to the casting and while there are some very good - and fun - actors in many of the roles, one of the roles is terribly miscast and that brings down the quality of this film quite a bit.
So, let’s start with what works - the central murder mystery is clever…enough…(for this sort of thing) and is wonderfully constructed around the London Stage debut of the long-running Agatha Christie murder mystery play THE MOUSETRAP in the 1950’s and, thus, this film is a period piece and that atmosphere adds - in a positive way - to the look and feel of this movie.
Saoirse Ronan, as always, is very good as the young Policewoman who is brought in to aide the main detective and proves out to be quite the Detective herself. She really holds this film together tightly in the middle. Adrien Brody, Ruth Wilson, David Oyelowo and Harris Dickinson all bring something to the film in their characters (and suspects) that add color and life to the central mystery.
Unfortunately, the usually good Sam Rockwell is miscast as the lead sleuth on this case. His frumpy, disheveled Detective was reminiscent of Columbo and just didn’t fit in this British Murder Mystery. While this performance is not a distraction to this film, it doesn’t elevate or lift this movie either, and - in a murder mystery - the detective solving the mystery is a major cog in the movie machine and this cog just isn’t that interesting.
Rockwell is not helped by a green Director and Writer who are looking to make the leap from television to film and this film feels more like a made for TV film, than a major motion picture.
Which is why this film is a good one to catch on one of the streaming services it is currently on. It is a fun enough film that will entertain young and old alike over the Holidays.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)