Search
Search results
GameCritics (290 KP) created a video about Super Mario Galaxy 2 in Video Games
Jul 14, 2017
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about The Walking Dead: March To War in Apps
Nov 21, 2017
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Aug 24, 2019
A fantastic gem of a thriller.
Let it be known, regardless of it's connection to Cloverfield, 10 Cloverfield Lane is a pretty solid thriller in its own right.
After walking away from a relationship, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) ends up in a car crash and is knocked unconscious.
She wakes up shortly afterwards, apparently rescued, but chained to the wall in a closed off room.
She has been rescued by Howard (John Goodman) and is being kept in his nuclear bunker.
Whilst she has been unconscious, there has been some kind of attack and Howard claims that the air up on the surface is unbreathable.
As Michelle adjusts to her new life underground, she becomes suspicious to Howard's claims and starts to believe he's hiding something.
10 Cloverfield Lane is absolutely dripping with tension for the majority of the runtime.
John Goodman is absolute fantastic and unpredictable. His character is both caring, and dangerous simultaneously.
Mary EW is also great in her role, and the two of them alongside John Gallagher Jr, make up a pretty solid trio of well fleshed out characters.
As the movie reaches it's climax, you'll be on the edge of your seat.
The connections to Cloverfield become more apparent near the movies finale, and do feel a little tacked on (this movie did start out as a non-Cloverfield related thriller called The Cellar) but it actually works in a neat sci-fi way.
It would be nice though, to see it all tied together a little tighter in future installments.
After walking away from a relationship, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) ends up in a car crash and is knocked unconscious.
She wakes up shortly afterwards, apparently rescued, but chained to the wall in a closed off room.
She has been rescued by Howard (John Goodman) and is being kept in his nuclear bunker.
Whilst she has been unconscious, there has been some kind of attack and Howard claims that the air up on the surface is unbreathable.
As Michelle adjusts to her new life underground, she becomes suspicious to Howard's claims and starts to believe he's hiding something.
10 Cloverfield Lane is absolutely dripping with tension for the majority of the runtime.
John Goodman is absolute fantastic and unpredictable. His character is both caring, and dangerous simultaneously.
Mary EW is also great in her role, and the two of them alongside John Gallagher Jr, make up a pretty solid trio of well fleshed out characters.
As the movie reaches it's climax, you'll be on the edge of your seat.
The connections to Cloverfield become more apparent near the movies finale, and do feel a little tacked on (this movie did start out as a non-Cloverfield related thriller called The Cellar) but it actually works in a neat sci-fi way.
It would be nice though, to see it all tied together a little tighter in future installments.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Big Over Easy (Nursery Crime, #1) in Books
Nov 8, 2019
After the success of his Thursday Next books, in which the heroine can enter works of fiction and interact with the characters, Fforde dusted off a previous idea for a novel: a town where nursery rhyme characters are real. Humpty Dumpty is found in pieces at the bottom of his wall, but did he fall or was he pushed?
Investigated by detective Jack Spratt (usefully the name Jack is quite common in nursery rhymes) and his new partner Mary Mary we meet a number of characters from nursery rhymes, songs and myth and legend. As the body count rises Jack and Mary must do what all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't, and assemble the pieces of Humpty's demise to find the culprit.
The world Fforde creates - a fictional version of the town of Reading (and strongly implied to be the same world that Thursday Next lives in, in the book-within-a-book Caversham Heights) works suprisingly well, perhaps because other than the traits inherited from their nursery rhymes the characters are otherwise conventional. So Jack can't eat any fat and is destined to sell something for beans, but at the core is a straightforward detective.
This contrasts with, say, The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse by Robert Rankin which again is a detective story populated with nursery rhyme characters (and poor Humpty is again a victim, but in a very different murder) where the setting is in Toyland so doesn't have the grounding of reality that The Big Over Easy does.
The plot itself is very complex - there are red herrings, theories and suspects galore - and Fforde enjoys playing with the reader as much as with Jack. And there is of course humour aplenty, both simple gags from the story and characters and also some good knowing winks to the reader when events mirror the characters' nursery rhymes. Above all Fforde never forgets that this is after all a detective novel.
Probably not quite as good as the Thursday Next books but definitely a good read and will entertain from the first to the last page.
Investigated by detective Jack Spratt (usefully the name Jack is quite common in nursery rhymes) and his new partner Mary Mary we meet a number of characters from nursery rhymes, songs and myth and legend. As the body count rises Jack and Mary must do what all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't, and assemble the pieces of Humpty's demise to find the culprit.
The world Fforde creates - a fictional version of the town of Reading (and strongly implied to be the same world that Thursday Next lives in, in the book-within-a-book Caversham Heights) works suprisingly well, perhaps because other than the traits inherited from their nursery rhymes the characters are otherwise conventional. So Jack can't eat any fat and is destined to sell something for beans, but at the core is a straightforward detective.
This contrasts with, say, The Hollow Chocolate Bunnies of the Apocalypse by Robert Rankin which again is a detective story populated with nursery rhyme characters (and poor Humpty is again a victim, but in a very different murder) where the setting is in Toyland so doesn't have the grounding of reality that The Big Over Easy does.
The plot itself is very complex - there are red herrings, theories and suspects galore - and Fforde enjoys playing with the reader as much as with Jack. And there is of course humour aplenty, both simple gags from the story and characters and also some good knowing winks to the reader when events mirror the characters' nursery rhymes. Above all Fforde never forgets that this is after all a detective novel.
Probably not quite as good as the Thursday Next books but definitely a good read and will entertain from the first to the last page.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a woman with many complications as we meet her just as she is leaving her engagement ring and fiancé behind to head off to a new future. We do not know what promoted this move other than an argument, but Michelle is unmoved by his plea-laden phone calls and opts to ignore them and move ahead with her life.
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Things take an unexpected turn when Michelle is involved in a car crash and awakens chained to the wall in a concrete room. Her savior Howard (John Goodman) explains that he saved her life and that they are safe 40 feet below the surface following an unexpected attack which has made the world outside the bunker deadly.
This is the premise of “10 Cloverfield Lane” which teams Producer J.J. Abrams and Director Dan Trachternberg as they craft a film that is unsettling and at times hard to define.
Michelle believes that Howard is not telling her the entire truth and his flashes of anger over trivial things causes her and fellow guest Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.), to fear that things are not what they seem and that they are in serious danger.
This is where the film really becomes unsettling as Howard is shown as sympathetic and sensitive yet at times terrifyingly volatile and unstable. There are numerous things that can be inferred or deduced from what they discover, but many aspects of Howard are left for the viewers to figure out for themselves as there is much truth in what he says, but there are also several omissions and misdirection.
As the tensions mount, the film plays out as taught characters piece filled with tension that keeps you guessing what is coming next.
The film does take a Hollywood style turn towards where FX and some unexpected and to some, impractical outcomes and plotlines are introduced, but it is always compelling and does keep you asking what is coming next.
The film has some interesting loose threads that do hint that a sequel could be an option should they elect to do so down the road.
Goodman and the cast are very strong and they are able to hold your attention without having to rely on fancy visuals and other tricks.
For now, the film is a tense and compelling film that aside from taking the Hollywood way out at the end is one of the more pleasant and entertaining surprises of 2016.
http://sknr.net/2016/03/11/10-cloverfield-lane/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
Spider-man, starring Tobey Maguire, came out on 14th June 2002. Co-starring Kirsten Dunst, James Franco and Willem Dafoe. My god doesn't every one look young!
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
It's the classic story, boy meets spider, spider bites boy, boy gets super-human powers.
Okay, so I'll be serious... Awkward high school student Peter Parker gets bitten by a genetically modified spider while out on a school field trip. It isn't adolescence that's changing him though, it's the spider bite, and his new found spider-like abilities come in handy when he decides to fight evil while wearing spandex, after a tragedy hits his family.
Watching Maguire climb a wall is truly cringe-worthy (the effects were terrible). He has this wide-eyed look of insanity. And when he's trying to shoot web intentionally for the first time I half expect a nerdy friend of his to be standing in the background saying "laaaaaame, I knew you were full of shit, Parker."
Spidey learns a harsh lesson about holding grudges after he lets the armed robber go when he gets stiffed for prize money at the arena. Something you also learn in this film, evidently if someone is bleeding you don't need to apply pressure to a serious wound to try and prolong their life while the ambulance gets there.
We learn many important things from this film... best friends can be arseholes. "Oh you like that girl do you, well guess what, I'm going to date her and let you find out by accident."... Oh, and that people running in terror are oblivious to people ripping open their shirts to reveal a Spider-man costume (although the same is true for Superman and Supergirl sometimes too.)... Mary Jane is an idiot, she doesn't recognise her own friend's voice (maybe because he's dressed in spandex and she was distracted) and she doesn't get the hint that "he was in the neighbourhood."... And Willem Dafoe does evil really, really well.
The effects really are terrible, there's no denying that technology has developed a lot since this film was made, but I always find it really awful watching things that are so obviously generated... that hideous artificial looking outline of the green screening. Speaking of green things, Green Goblin's outfit is reminiscent of an over the top Power Ranger villain.
Between the terrible effects and the overacting, I'm honestly not sure what this film was going for. It had too many "funny" bits to be a serious film, and it had too many "serious" bits to be a funny film. I'm left thinking of Batman Forever as a comparison, the only difference being that BF was just over the top enough to be funny.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Oct 2, 2020 (Updated Oct 6, 2020)
Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn (2 more)
Badass fight choreography
Some really cool action sequences
I wasn't a fan of the self narration the entire film. (2 more)
I also didn't like the Tarantino-ish way of chopping up the story and going back and forth the way they did.
I feel like every character in this movie was underutilized and could have been done better or had better character development.
Birds of a Feather Can't Stick Their Landing On This One
Contains spoilers, click to show
Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is a 2020 action super hero film. Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures, it is a follow-up to Suicide Squad (2016). The movie was directed by Cathy Yan and written by Christina Hodson, and it stars Margot Robbie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Jurnee Smollett-Bell, Rosie Perez, Chris Messina and Ewan McGregor.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Four years after the defeat of the Enchantress, the Joker throws Harley Quinn out on the Gotham City streets when they break up. The already extremely volatile and unhinged, Harley (Margot Robbie) finds herself all alone with a huge target on her back. Without the Joker in the picture, the city is turned upside down as criminals that have a beef with Harley hunt her down. Gotham's most narcissistic villain, Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor), and his right-hand man, Victor Zsasz (Chris Messina), have Harley and a precious diamond in their sights. Now Harley, Huntress (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), Black Canary (Jurnee Smollett-Bell) and Detective Renee Montoya's (Rosie Perez) paths collide, and the unlikely foursome have no choice but to team up to take Roman down.
First off let me say that I love Margot Robbie as Harley Quinn. I've always been a big Harley fan since before she was mainstream cool and a big part of that would have to be the Batman Animated Series and how it portrayed her. I liked Margot Robbie's performance in Suicide Squad and thought she did an excellent job of bringing that character to "life". I didn't have high expectations for this movie going in and sometimes that can be a good thing because it leaves you more open to the film being better than you thought it was going to be. Right away I didn't like the whole, Harley narrating the movie in the beginning and kind of throughout the movie. I don't know if they were trying to go for a "funny" Deadpool breaking the "4th" wall type thing but for me it just kind of made the movie less fun. I also have to say that I wasn't a big fan of the pacing and the whole going back and forth through time in the events of the movie. I think it might have been better on paper than how it actually came out in the movie. Kind of Tarantino-ish but just kind of overdone because of the info-dumping narration. There were some awesome fight sequences and there was plenty of over the top violence and action but a lot could have been done better. For me the plot was what felt like it made the movie feel a little lackluster. I really felt like they failed to flesh out Black Canary's character and Huntress felt extremely unpolished as well. A lot of the character's were underutilized except in gratuitous fight scenes and the audience is not shown their motivations a lot of the time but instead told them. I have to say some parts did make me laugh and the music wasn't terrible. The acting was extremely bad sometimes though. I don't know what they were going for with Huntress/Mary Elizabeth Winstead but she comes off as a badass but then really awkward or nerdy and then for a little bit she was a raging psychopath killer. I don't think they knew what direction to take the character and her performance definitely suffered. Black Canary/Jurnee Smollett-Bell was a character that was really cool but without knowing her motivations it really took alot out by never uncovering more about her character until later. A lot of things didn't make sense too. I can't believe that anyone would want to mess with Harley even if she wasn't with Joker. I however could have seen anyone and I mean anyone go after her for a big reward like they placed on the kid. Also a big reward like that on a no name kid who is just a low level pick pocket wouldn't have brought in that much results. Plus the diamond that she has is something you wouldn't want anybody else finding out about so why bring so much attention to it. Harley Quinn and all the other female actors in this movie have "plot armor" and never get hurt even when being blown up or shot at. All-in-all, it was an enjoyable movie but I wouldn't say it was anything special. This was a big-budget superhero film that comes off more run of the mill and fails to bring anything "wow" except some pretty kick ass action sequences and Margot Robbie and her return to Harley Quinn. I give it a 5/10.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Birds of Prey (And the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) (2020) in Movies
Feb 15, 2020
A lot of squawking birds
Although not saying much, Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn was one of the best thing in the lacklustre D.C. outing “Suicide Squad” of 2016. Now, she returns in her own vehicle. Jared Leto’s Joker is a thing of the past (clearly he wasn’t keen on dredging up the past for even a cameo in this one).
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Harley had spent years building up a catalog of enemies in Gotham, with no-one daring to lift a finger for fear of “the big J’s” retribution. With that now a thing of the past, the streets are no longer safe for Harley. Whereas most characters have a reason to want to kill Harley, mid-level gangster Roman Sionis (Ewan McGregor) has a list as long as his arm (a blurred list that will probably make freeze-framing of the blu-ray entertaining!). Roman, who has a penchant for having his right-hand man Victor (Chris Messina) de-glove his victim’s faces, has his heart set on obtaining a missing diamond that (McGuffin-alert) is engraved with account details to $billions.
Through a convoluted and messy plot, Harley meets various ‘birds of prey’ who are either friend or foe: notably young pickpocket Cassandra (Ella Jay Basco); cop Renée Montoya (Rosie Perez); the “Crossbow Killer” (Mary Elizabeth Winstead); and the “Black Canary” (Jurnee Smollett-Bell), who you don’t want to let near your best glasses.
As you might expect from your knowledge of Harley Quinn’s character, the movie is bat-shit crazy, with periodic breaking of the 4th wall; much acrobatic kick-boxing; and some random dream sequences….. Robbie as Marilyn is particularly entertaining, although at times (the ‘egg sandwich’ sequence in particular) the gurning made me muse to myself about just what a good film “I, Tonya” was.
It all comes across as something of a “Deadpool” sequel. Actually, I’d more describe it as “Deadpool-lite” since it’s not powered here by the charisma of Ryan Reynolds. However, I did find myself quite enjoying the first reel of the movie.
Unfortunately, it didn’t last.
It all just becomes incredibly tiresome. Although Margot Robbie is very good in the role, Harley’s incessant squawking just gets annoying.
Also in this battle of men vs women, the women always win and are (mostly) completely unscathed. In one particular scene there are 5 or 6 burly men taking on Harley: clearly she whips their sorry asses in improbable fashion. What? Only one at a time guys?
If you were confused by the timeline of “Little Women“, this will blow your mind! It makes Greta Gerwig‘s masterpiece look as linear as “News at Ten”! It’s really difficult to follow at times as the timeline flashes forwards and backwards and sideways at random!
Also confusing (for me anyway… did I have a nap?) was the finale. There’s something to do with a ring which made NO SENSE to me at all? Am I alone in that?
Ewan MacGregor has fun with his role as the gay (I assume?) gangster, but it all turns cartoonish at times. But perhaps, that’s the point? However while the violence in “Deadpool” was cartoonishly funny (as in Tom and Jerry) the violence here is decidedly of the vicious and unpleasant variety, with a vindictive edge. It makes you not particularly like any of the movie’s characters.
The movie is written by Christina Hodson, who is slated to write too more upcoming superhero films: “The Flash” and “Batgirl”. The director is Chinese director Cathy Yan in only her second directorial feature.
Summary: It’s loud and brash and at 109 minutes it overstays its welcome by about 20 minutes. Less would have been more. It’s somewhat better than “Suicide Squad” (which I unfathomably seem to have given 2.5 stars to), but it’s still a movie that I will struggle to remember in a month’s time.
(For the full graphical review, check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-birds-of-prey-and-the-fantabulous-emancipation-of-one-harley-quinn-2020/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Manchester by the Sea (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow! I’d heard all about the Oscar hype surrounding this film but to be honest, while I thought I would be seeing a solid and well-made indie film, I went into it without great expectations of having an ‘enjoyable’ time: the trailer had “angst” written all over it. And – sure – it is emotional and harrowing in places. However, I was completely knocked out by the depth, the intelligence and the humour of this masterpiece.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.
‘Family troubles’ is a common trope for the movies, and I was strongly reminded at times in watching this movie of a multi-Oscar winning classic of my youth: Robert Redford’s “Ordinary People” back in 1980. In that film the relationship between parents (Mary Tyler-Moore and Donald Sutherland) and their teenage son (Timothy Hutton) is rocked by the accidental death of another family member. Similarly, in “Manchester by the Sea” a drifting handyman Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck, “Triple 9“, “Interstellar“) gets the shocking news that his only brother Joe (Kyle Chandler, “The Wolf of Wall Street“) has suddenly passed away, leaving behind a mid-teens son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) with no-one to look after him.
With the other option being an unstable and ex-alcoholic mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) – now divorced and living in a strictly pious household with new husband Jeffrey (Matthew Broderick) – Joe has legally plumped for naming Lee as the boy’s guardian. This is much to Lee’s surprise and annoyance. For Lee is a man-adrift: an antisocial loner with a very short fuse. Having any sort of responsibility is not in his game plan.
With the ground too frozen to bury his brother, Lee is forced to remain in Manchester-by-the-Sea for a few weeks: a town he can’t stand and a town that, for some reason, can’t stand him. Can Lee’s attitude be softened by his lively and over-sexed nephew? Or will he just continue his emotional and social decline towards a gutter and a brown-bag?
Where this film surprises – with a strong kick to the gut – is that while I have described the high-level story in the paragraphs above that the trailer depicts, there is a whole other dimension to the tale that is hidden and truly astonishing. No spoilers, but if you are not shocked and moved by it, then you need your humanity chip reset.
Casey Affleck is Oscar-nominated now for Best Actor and I would love to see him win for this. I had a real go at his brother, Ben, for a lack of facial variation in his performance in “Live By Night“. Here, while Casey has a similar dour and pretty rigid demeanour, his performance is chalk-and-cheese compared to Ben. He channels a shut-down rage in his eyes that is both haunting and disturbing in equal measure.
Young Lucas Hedges – overlooked by the BAFTAs (he is in the “Rising Star” category) but yesterday nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar – is equally strong, burying his teenage grief in guitars, sex and smart phones in a highly believable way.
Supporting roles are equally strong, with Michelle Williams – albeit only having limited screen time – delivering truly memorable scenes, notably the street encounter with Lee (as featured on the poster) which is electrifying. She is also Oscar nominated for the role.
What really makes these performances shine is the elegant directing by Kenneth Lonergan, better known for his screenplays on films like “Analyze This” and “Gangs of New York”. He gives the actors time… lots of time. A typical example is when young Patrick walks into Lee’s bedroom and stares at some photos on his bedside table before walking on. It must be a good 20 to 30 seconds used, but time really well spent. The film spectacularly uses flash-backs to great effect, with the only visual notification that you are in a different time-zone being the living and breathing appearance of Joe in the shot.
Lonergan also writes the screenplay, and I mentioned in my introduction the humour used. There are some outright belly laughs in this film, which feels incongruous with the morbid subject matter but which also feels guiltily appropriate (we’ve all surely had an experience where a tense funeral mood is lightened by an uncle loudly farting at the back of the church, or similar!).
Manchester-by-the-Sea is a picturesque place in Massachusetts, and the camera work by Jody Lee Lipes (“Martha Marcy May Marlene”, “Trainwreck”) lovingly makes use of that. There is incredibly crisp focus, with the opening boat scene looks like it is hyper-HD.
This is a truly stunning film, and one that will live with me for many years to come. For that reason it receives my highest accolade together with my best wishes for success at the forthcoming Oscars. If you haven’t yet, go see it.