Search
Suswatibasu (1701 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 10, 2017 (Updated Nov 10, 2017)
Underwhelming
Assassin's Creed is filled with some great action scenes, especially whilst in the animus, and as per usual acting from the leads Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, and Jeremy Irons, is superb.
However, the film may have tried too hard to cater for both fans of the game and newcomers alike, which does not seem possible, and as a result, it failed to engage either audience. The story is a tapestry of old-world mysticism and sci-fi tech that hangs together but also proves hard to follow if you haven't played the games. Despite a high-class cast, it is disorienting, and makes very little sense.
Visually captivating but a paper thin and over blown premise which could have been the basis of a very interesting film.
However, the film may have tried too hard to cater for both fans of the game and newcomers alike, which does not seem possible, and as a result, it failed to engage either audience. The story is a tapestry of old-world mysticism and sci-fi tech that hangs together but also proves hard to follow if you haven't played the games. Despite a high-class cast, it is disorienting, and makes very little sense.
Visually captivating but a paper thin and over blown premise which could have been the basis of a very interesting film.
Alec Baldwin recommended Hunger (2009) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Steve Jobs (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Steve Jobs is written by Aaron Sorkin and directed by Danny Boyle, stars Micheal Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Michael Stuhlbarg.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Now that those formalities are out of the way I will just come out and say it. Steve Jobs is the best dramatic bio-pic I have seen. In fact, it is the best movie I have seen this year. Acted fantastically to the point of realism, the film takes the typical three act story arc and shows us the life of Steve Jobs at three periods of his life right before a product launch where we see Jobs as both innovator and villain alike. Each period consist of the 30-45 minutes of visually stimulating and aggressive cinematography leading up to each product launch and how the major people in Job’s life come in and out of those moments. These moments reveal that seemingly simple interactions with Jobs lead to a constant chess match of words and minds to maintain the reality distortion field of a seemingly great man but seemingly not a very good person. Clearly the film takes some Hollywood liberties, but with the screenplay based off the authorized biography of the same name by Walter Isaacson, the film Steve Jobs is probably the most realistic portrayal we may see of the man himself.
That portrayal is delivered splendidly by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender’s performance though each phase of the film is scary. That is to say he plays the egotistical narcissist to perfection. We get real moments of a cold and calculating manipulative intelligent person with quiet moments of compassion here or there. During arguments, Fassbender knows how to delivers bombs out of moments where you would not expect them and at points those arguments feel like high speed action scenes in an otherwise action less film. It is quite remarkable to witness.
Seth Rogen (uncredited) delivers the best dramatic performance of his career as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbarg likewise delivers a solid performance that stands in this film. While Jeff Daniels, coming off a great performance in the recently successful film The Martian, delivers an outstanding nuanced performance here across from Fassbender. When the two of them are on screen together it is as if they are speaking high prose to each other, albeit at times screaming. I would not be surprised if Daniels is nomination on his work for this film.
Finally we come to Kate Winslet who plays marketing executive Joanna Hoffman. To me she delivered the most fantastic performance in this film. Perhaps because she was the likable better half to Fassbender but more importantly we see this woman who is the only one to stand up to and in a sense understand Steve Jobs’s reality distortion field and work in and out of it as she desperately tries to hold everything together. We she her grow as someone who clearly loves and admires this man however recognizes his faults and is willing to call him out on them. Winslet reminds us yet again why she is one of the best actress in Hollywood and I predict she will be taking home a little gold statue to go with her performance in this film.
If you are still on the fence about watching this film, let me push you off it. Watch it. That may not mean in theaters, which is perhaps my only small complaint about this film. This is the type of film that would be great if it was released same day on digital distribution so you could watch it a few times from home over a few days while you think about it. But at some point you owe it to yourself to be amazed by the fantastic performances and cinematography of this film. While it may not be something you have to see on the big screen, it is absolutely worth the full price of admission. Do not miss it.
Kaylin (39 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
May 26, 2017
Had a genuinely creepy vibe (3 more)
Likeable characters for the most part
Michael Fassbender is great
That cameo!
Doesn't feel like an Alien movie to me (2 more)
Acting can be very flat
Characters make stupid decisions that it doesn't feel like their character should make
Felt like an alien movie, but didn't feel like an Alien movie
I love the Alien franchise. I have all 4 of the original movies and I've seen all of them multiple times, even 3 and Resurrection. I'm not a huge fan of Prometheus, but I was really looking forward to this movie despite knowing it would probably be more of a sequel to that instead of a true prequel to the Alien franchise.
I...am not entirely sure how I feel about this film. It's not a bad movie, but I don't feel like it's a true Alien film. There are great things about this movie. Michael Fassbender is pretty amazing in dual roles. Danny McBride shows that he can actually act outside of comedies. I cared about most of the characters. The gore was practical and not overbearing. Some of the characters actually made smart decisions. The "main character" is actually a decent action girl.
But, to go with the good there's the...not so good. For every good decision the "main character" makes, the "captain" makes 3 dumb ones. There's a couple scenes that make no sense. The "plot twist" is predictable. When you finally see the alien, it looks super human and not at all like xenomorphs we know.
It's a good sci-fi horror/thriller movie, but if you're expecting something in the vein of the originals, you're going to be disappointed.
I...am not entirely sure how I feel about this film. It's not a bad movie, but I don't feel like it's a true Alien film. There are great things about this movie. Michael Fassbender is pretty amazing in dual roles. Danny McBride shows that he can actually act outside of comedies. I cared about most of the characters. The gore was practical and not overbearing. Some of the characters actually made smart decisions. The "main character" is actually a decent action girl.
But, to go with the good there's the...not so good. For every good decision the "main character" makes, the "captain" makes 3 dumb ones. There's a couple scenes that make no sense. The "plot twist" is predictable. When you finally see the alien, it looks super human and not at all like xenomorphs we know.
It's a good sci-fi horror/thriller movie, but if you're expecting something in the vein of the originals, you're going to be disappointed.
Nickg24 (492 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Aug 30, 2019
Sophie Turner (3 more)
Sophie Turner
Some dodgy special effects
Oh and Sophie Turner
A tragic end to a beloved franchise
What a horrific end to a franchise that helped pave way for all the superhero movies we get now.
You could find fault in just about every scene,from the ridiculous way they rushed jean grey into becoming the phoenix to the stupid ending (the jean grey school for gifted children!!!!) If I never see another film or tv show with sophie turner in it I will be a very happy man.She cant act and has the personality of a wet sock.
Michael Fassbender was criminally wasted and given nowhere near enough presence in the film.
The only saving grace is now the x-men are back home with marvel who will reboot them and make them great again.
You could find fault in just about every scene,from the ridiculous way they rushed jean grey into becoming the phoenix to the stupid ending (the jean grey school for gifted children!!!!) If I never see another film or tv show with sophie turner in it I will be a very happy man.She cant act and has the personality of a wet sock.
Michael Fassbender was criminally wasted and given nowhere near enough presence in the film.
The only saving grace is now the x-men are back home with marvel who will reboot them and make them great again.
Sharpie0499 (114 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jul 9, 2018 (Updated Jul 9, 2018)
Excellent fight choreography (1 more)
Good casting choices
Terrible plotline (1 more)
Bad scriptwriting
Pretty Decent Adaptation
The best element of the Assassin's Creed film adaptation has to be the fight choreography. It was so skilfully done to the best of the choreographers', stunt doubles', and actors' abilities, and it paid off. The casting choices were also commendable as Michael Fassbender was the perfect choice for the leading role of Cal and I am unable to picture anyone else playing that role. But I have to admit, the plotline and the writing weren't up to modern film standards; meaning they completely fell through. I love this film, but if it was written better with a much better plotline, it would not go into the 'bad film adaptation' pile. Overall, I wouldn't call this an award-winning film, but it is very entertaining to watch and the fight scenes are incredible.
Awix (3310 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 6, 2019 (Updated Jun 6, 2019)
Final main-sequence entry in a film series that made a lot of noise about celebrating difference is likely to be met with indifference (at best). The sense that the X-Men franchise has finally run out of steam is only emphasised by the fact that this is another swing at the Dark Phoenix storyline, which somehow manages to be even less satisfying than the first time they did it.
A thin script and lacklustre direction are mainly to blame; there is the odd decent moment but they are not strung together effectively. Most of the X-Men feel like cardboard cut-outs this time. The usual charisma and acting skill is also largely absent, with only Michael Fassbender making much of an impression. I think it's fair to say that without the X-Men series there would not have been the MCU movies, so this franchise's place in history is assured - but the superhero movie has, ironically, evolved, and this film feels very tired and irrelevant.
A thin script and lacklustre direction are mainly to blame; there is the odd decent moment but they are not strung together effectively. Most of the X-Men feel like cardboard cut-outs this time. The usual charisma and acting skill is also largely absent, with only Michael Fassbender making much of an impression. I think it's fair to say that without the X-Men series there would not have been the MCU movies, so this franchise's place in history is assured - but the superhero movie has, ironically, evolved, and this film feels very tired and irrelevant.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Killer (2023) in Movies
Nov 18, 2023
Interesting...but ends with a "thud"
Director David Fincher has a strong track record of interesting films…SE7EN, FIGHT CLUB, THE SOCIAL NETWORK (to name a few). Michael Fassbender is one of the more interesting actors working today…HUNGER, INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, PROMETHEUS (to name a few). So when these 2 got together to make a film of the graphic novel THE KILLER, anticipation was high.
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Lower those expectations just a bit and you’ll be rewarded by an enteraning (enough) film/character study that is…interesting, but lands with a “thud”.
Based on the aforementioned graphic novel that was written by Alexis Nolent and illustrated by Luc Jacamon, THE KILLER follows the titular character after a hit has gone wrong and he must fight to save his life, while seeking vengeance on those that wronged him.
It is a “thinking man’s” hit-man film set in the seedy underground of a high-priced assassin. In lesser hands this could be a lesser John Wick knock-off, but in Fincher’s skilled fingers, THE KILLER is an intriguing character study.
It helps that the central figure of this film is portrayed by Michael Fassbender who is fascinating to watch even if he is just sitting around looking out a window. And this is good…for he spends the first 20 minutes of this film…sitting around looking out a window (waiting for his target to show up). It is a unique choice in a film such as this and with Fincher’s direction and Fassbender’s performance, it works more often than it doesn’t.
After the initial hit goes awry, sending Fassbender’s character on a global manhunt, the rest of the film is a series of one-on-one scenes with THE KILLER versus THE LAWYER (Charles Parnell - who is turning into a pretty reliable “that guy” character actor). THE KILLER versus THE BEAST (in what is the best action scene in the film) and THE KILLER versus THE CLIENT (portrayed by Arliss Howard in another portrayal of an “a-hole rich guy”). All of these scenes work for the most part, but none of them “knock it out of the park”.
The only scene that comes close to knocking it out of the park is THE KILLER versus THE EXPERT and that is because The Expert is played by Tilda Swinton and has 90% of the dialogue in the scene. It is always exciting to see 2 marvelous performers sitting across a table, playing off each other and Fassbender and Swinton (especially) shine in this portion of the film.
The problem with THE KILLER is that the separate scenes do not add up to a cohesive whole - and certainly the parts are more interesting than the final procduct and that blame needs to be placed at the feet of Director Fincher who should have been able to blend these scenes together better. He isn’t helped by a finale scene that lands with a thud…on purpose. But a “thud” is a “thud” and that is a tricky way to end the film.
And…in the case of THE KILLER…Fincher (and Fassbender) did not build up enough equity heading into the final scene that one can forgive “the thud”….though it is still a pretty good film. The “thud” pulls this film down from “really good” (not great) to just…”good”.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019 (Updated Nov 12, 2019)
Nahhhh
Assassin's Creed is a series of (mostly) decent games that I personally enjoy. It's got a simple yet solid premise that has a story running in a select time in history, whilst simultaneously having another story running in modern day. It's full of parkour action, and flashy combat, and lends itself nicely to a movie adaption format?
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
So just how on Earth is said movie adaption so damn forgettable?
It's got a strong cast - Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Brendan Gleeson, Jeremy Irons - all fantastic actors, and all completely wasted in a boring story, and boring script.
A huge part is the issue, is perhaps that a lot of the film is stuck in the modern day setting - there's only so much of Fassbender becoming unhinged whilst strapped to the (admittedly pretty neat re designed) Animus.
The parts set in the past (taking place in the 15th Century Granada War) is much more fun. It's here that the movie looks and feels like the beloved game series, and I like that the writers set it in a period we haven't yet seen in the games.
The costume design and setting looks great.
The action set pieces we get here are entertaining, even if they are sometimes hidden between quick cut style camera work.
But it's all a bit light on this side of things.
Assassin's Creed isn't an all out awful film, it's just a bit of a non event, lacking in excitement and proving to be mostly forgettable, leaving me with little desire to rewatch.
It's a shame - if Assassin's Creed can't be adapted well, then I have little hope left for anything video game related (Once again, except Detective Pikachu goddamn it)
Erika (17788 KP) rated The Snowman (2017) in Movies
Oct 20, 2017 (Updated Oct 23, 2017)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Well, to start, there were two very basic things that they could have gotten right. Harry drinks Jim Beam and his last name is not pronounced like the orifice, as has been specified in multiple books in the series. Also, they could at least have included Beate Lonn (or, was she supposed to be the chick at the computer at one point?).. Katrine Bratt was as annoying as I expected her to be, and I completely didn't mind that she was killed off. The plot was convoluted, thank god I read the book and knew the relevance of Stop in the whole story, whereas it wasn't clear why he was featured in the movie. It could have been so much better! The source material is great, and they completely dropped the ball. The scenery was beautiful, but, Norway is beautiful in general. Don't even get me started about Rakel, I have nothing nice to say about what they did to her character. Overall, I didn't mind Michael Fassbender as Harry, he probably did the best he could with that script.