Search
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Clue (1985) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
The Multiple Endings (2 more)
The Cast
The Humor
All Time Favorites
Ive seen Clue about nine times now and it has become a tradition to watch Clue every October. I remember watching clue the first time and i laughed my ass off and i still do that. The humor is excellent, the cast is excellent, the multiple endings are excellent. Everything about Clue is excellent.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
The plot: Based on the popular board game, this comedy begins at a dinner party hosted by Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving), where he admits to blackmailing his visitors. These guests, who have been given aliases, are Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Miss Scarlet (Lesley Ann Warren), Mr. Green (Michael McKean), professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) and Col. Mustard (Martin Mull). When Boddy turns up murdered, all are suspects, and together they try to figure out who is the killer.
The film was produced by Debra Hill and the story was by John Landis.
In keeping with the nature of the board game, the theatrical release included three possible endings, with different theaters receiving one of the three endings. In the film's home video release, all three endings were included.
The multiple-ending concept was developed by John Landis, who claimed in an interview to have invited playwright Tom Stoppard, writer and composer Stephen Sondheim, and actor Anthony Perkins to write the screenplay. The script was ultimately finished by director Jonathan Lynn.
A fourth ending was filmed, but Lynn removed it because as he later stated, "It really wasn't very good. I looked at it, and I thought, 'No, no, no, we've got to get rid of that.'" In the unused fourth ending, Wadsworth committed all of the murders. He was motivated by his desire for perfection. Having failed to be either the perfect husband or the perfect butler, he decided to be the perfect murderer instead. Wadsworth reports that he poisoned the champagne the guests had drunk earlier so they would soon die, leaving no witnesses. The police and the FBI arrive and Wadsworth is arrested. He breaks free and steals a police car, but his escape is thwarted when three police dogs lunge from the back seat. This ending is documented in Clue: The Storybook, a tie-in book released in conjunction with the film.
Carrie Fisher was originally contracted to portray Miss Scarlet, but withdrew to enter treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Jonathan Lynn's first choice for the role of Wadsworth was Leonard Rossiter, but he died before filming commenced. The second choice was Rowan Atkinson, but it was decided that he wasn't well known enough at the time, so Tim Curry was eventually cast.
Mrs. White's famous "Flames" speech was improvised by Madeline Kahn.
A documentary about the movie is being made, including interviews already filmed with the director, writer, and several cast members including Lesley Ann Warren, Michael McKean, Colleen Camp, and Lee Ving.
I love Clue, it is one of my all time favorite films. In my top ten best films of all time at number #3 and just excellent.
Happy Halloween everybody.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fury (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
To start, let me say that I’m a sucker for a good war movie. Growing up as a military brat, I have a profound respect for our nation’s veterans and history, especially those from the “greatest generation.” With that said, I approached David Ayer’s Fury with a bit of hesitation, after all, how will Fury be able to differentiate itself from so many other films in the genre? I am happy to say that, while Fury doesn’t show us anything we have not really seen before, strong performances by its ensemble cast help carry this story of a tank crew into a solid film.
Brad Pitt delivers a stellar performance as Don “Wardaddy” Collier. He is a war hardened Sergeant who struggles to keep the few shreds of his humanity while preparing his new “green” typist who was assigned to his tank after one of their battle brothers has fallen. Pitt takes the young Pvt. Norman Ellision (Logan Lerman) under his command and works to make him into war hardened soldier. Pitt knows that by doing so he will not only to save the young man’s life, but probably the lives of the other men in his care. This ensemble cast shines with solid performances from Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal and Shia LaBeouf. I want to take a moment to highlight LaBeouf especially. He has gained tons of negative press in recent months for several reasons and the promotion of this film has shown little of LaBeouf thus far. No doubt to protect itself from the backlash in his public life. But if you decide to not go and see this film because of him, you will miss out on a strong more dramatic performance we really haven’t seen from him often and one that will remind audiences that he is a good actor.
This action in this film is methodical and someone slow and somewhat cartoonish thanks to tracers on the gun and cannon fire that makes it look like “Star Wars” at times, however the intensity is constantly building from the opening sequence through the climax of the movie. Even in the middle of the film where we are seemingly in a safe place, the intensity is continues to build as we are unsure just how humane these characters are. This intensity leads us to care about these characters and search for relief in the climatic conclusion.
Brad Pitt delivers a stellar performance as Don “Wardaddy” Collier. He is a war hardened Sergeant who struggles to keep the few shreds of his humanity while preparing his new “green” typist who was assigned to his tank after one of their battle brothers has fallen. Pitt takes the young Pvt. Norman Ellision (Logan Lerman) under his command and works to make him into war hardened soldier. Pitt knows that by doing so he will not only to save the young man’s life, but probably the lives of the other men in his care. This ensemble cast shines with solid performances from Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal and Shia LaBeouf. I want to take a moment to highlight LaBeouf especially. He has gained tons of negative press in recent months for several reasons and the promotion of this film has shown little of LaBeouf thus far. No doubt to protect itself from the backlash in his public life. But if you decide to not go and see this film because of him, you will miss out on a strong more dramatic performance we really haven’t seen from him often and one that will remind audiences that he is a good actor.
This action in this film is methodical and someone slow and somewhat cartoonish thanks to tracers on the gun and cannon fire that makes it look like “Star Wars” at times, however the intensity is constantly building from the opening sequence through the climax of the movie. Even in the middle of the film where we are seemingly in a safe place, the intensity is continues to build as we are unsure just how humane these characters are. This intensity leads us to care about these characters and search for relief in the climatic conclusion.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
At a rundown warehouse in 1970’s Boston, Justine (Brie Larson) and Ord (Armie Hammer) are brokering a deal between a South African arms dealer (Sharlto Copley) and members of the IRA (Cillian Murphy & Michael Smiley). Tensions flare almost immediately between the two sides and an inevitable battle of wills and gunplay ensues when two members of their entourage take decisive action on a fresh grudge from the night before.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
It may say Scorsese’s producing, but Free Fire definitely smacks more of a Tarantino-influenced affair and I can think of no better example, in recent years anyway, that proves the lasting legacy of his still awe-inspiring debut, Reservoir Dogs. After years of making deliberately obtuse films (High Rise, A Field in England), Ben Wheatley has finally made something accessible, but unfortunately, Free Fire can’t pack the same visceral punch and narrative competence as the films that it takes influence from. I’m having flashbacks to about this time last year when I reviewed another film from A24, Green Room. I walked out of Free Fire in much the same manner; on a high, feeling satisfied from what appeared to be something unique and notable. As the hours have passed and I’m preparing my summation, the sentiment has all but vanished and I’m wanting of something with a little more substance. Granted, an 90 minute runtime can only accommodate so much, but I have to ask: could all that time spent crawling around in the dust and the rubble, as realistic a light that it may or may not shine on the authenticity of an actual shootout, have been used instead to get inside our characters motivations, driving us to really care about their fates? There’s no doubt that from its style and attitude, there was the potential for this to be the Reservoir Dogs for a new generation, but ultimately it’s just not a very memorable experience.
What will save Free Fire from obscurity is a cast that, despite having little plot to work with, is firing on all cylinders. An exemplary job is done from Oscar winners on down to character actors whose faces you know, but names you don’t. There isn’t one weak link in the chain and their performances have an excellent balance of toughness and levity that grounds them just enough to allow for suspension of disbelief. I might chastise Ben Wheatley as a storyteller, but there’s no doubt that he has an ear for great dialogue and fine judgement on the performers to deliver it.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fantastic Four (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
If you hold the film rights to an iconic and beloved comic book series, one would think you would do everything possible to see that it flourishes under you watch. For 29th Century Fox, The Fantastic Four is an asset that should be a gem of their studio as the long-running Marvel comic series has had legions of fans for generations.
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
The previous two films did well enough but still had their detractors amongst the fans. So, Fox opted for a hiatus and then a radical reboot of the series complete with casting choices that were considered very questionable.
The new version features Miles Teller as Reed Richards, a young man obsessed with teleportation to the point that his teachers and other students laugh at him for his odd and obsessive ways.
His only friend is Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell), who despite a lack of scientific knowledge supports Reed in his efforts which eventually allow him to be recruited by Dr. Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey), who discloses that he is working on a large scale teleportation device and seeing how Reed pulled it off with a device he made in his garage, is eager to see what he can do at a fully-funded facility.
Reed meets Franklins adopted daughter Sue (Kate Mara), as well as his son Johnny (Michael B. Jordan), while they work with the mercurial Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbell), to complete the device.
When the team finds success, they are horrified to learn that the government plans to take over control of the project so Ben, Victor, Johnny, and Reed opt to use it themselves to visit the other dimension in order to leave their mark in history.
Things at first go well but when a mysterious force envelops them, odd things start to happen when they return home. Reed is capable of stretching himself, Johnny is a living fire, Ben is covered in rocks, and Sue is phasing in and out.
Flashing forward the group is under the watch of the government and Reed has fled not wanting to be a part of whatever is going on. Ben is used for special operations and blames Reed for abandoning them as Sue and Johnny are prepped for the field.
Now one would think a setup like this has some potential at the very least for some action and great FX. Sadly the film lurches ahead fairly light on action. The threat to the film appears, and within 10 minutes has moved to a fairly underwhelming final conflict that is so obviously done in front of a Green Screen that it loses much of the intended impact.
The best I can say for the film is that it is a forgettable and flawed film that tries to launch a new franchise in a new way. But the casting choices in the film are so wrong, that it undermines it at every step. Setting aside the debate over an African American Johnny Storm, Miles Teller is so bland; he just does not scream leading man or driving force behind the team.
The same can be said for pretty much the entire cast. The backstories hint at various things but their actions conflict several aspects of the film which to be honest are fairly forgettable.
The entire movie is like watching a Jr. College Fan Film where the cast has a Green Screen and studio funding, but not a clue on how to carry out a story, modern action sequences of character development.
Fox needs to take a serious page from Sony and work with Marvel if they are going to continue this franchise, or return the rights to Marvel so fans can finally get a film that does justice to the source material.
I am glad that Director Josh Trank is no longer associated with the pending Star Wars film as this movie is a train wreck that spits all over the history and legacy of the source material.
http://sknr.net/2015/08/07/the-fantastic-four/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Guardians of the Galaxy (2014) in Movies
Jan 9, 2020
Epic Indeed
In Guardians of the Galaxy, a group of unlikely heroes for a team to keep a powerful weapon out of the hands of a madman.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
The team is perfect and there’s no disputing it. They’re led by Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who goes by the name of Starlord. He’s a self-loving womanizer who’s got comebacks for days. He falls in love with Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a green alien badass who is the daughter of a tyrant. Out of the five of them, my personal favorite is Groot (Vin Diesel), a tree being who only says, “I am Groot” yet his good friend Rocket Raccoon (weapons expert and maniac) seems to be the only one that understands the true context of his words. And I could do two more paragraphs on Drax (Dave Bautista) alone. You can’t help but love this team.
Beyond these characters, the movie really excels by bringing in a number of memorable characters that have smaller roles. Ronin (Lee Pace) the villain is a fun bad guy you definitely respect. Meanwhile, the mohawked Yondu is on the hunt for Starlord. Yondu (Michael Rooker) carries around a cool weapon that responds to his whistling. These characters are not only endearing, but experience growth throughout the movie.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
The first ten minutes takes you on sheer adventure and it never lets up from there. The stakes are high (they’re guarding the galaxy for God’s sake!) and the villain is a legit threat. There are space chases, prison breakouts, and more that will keep you entertained for the duration of the movie.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
It’s rare that I clap, laugh, and tear up all in the same movie. I lost count of the number of scenes that could be considered all-time greats in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. I love that the movie dives into finding family int the most unlikely of places.
Pace: 10
Hard to believe the movie was over two hours when I checked the run time. It runs so smoothly and quickly. When it’s over, you feel like you’ve been on a massive adventure in a short amount of time.
Plot: 10
There were a number of places throughout the movie where an average story could have lost its way. Guardians of the Galaxy never misses a beat. It connects all of its dots while reaching out to the extended universe at the same time.
Resolution: 10
Groot…I love you. That’s all I will say.
Overall: 100
Endless adventure. Funny for days. Touching moments. A budding romance. Guardians of the Galaxy is why I love movies.
WA
Wanderlust: Actions, Traces, Journeys 1967-2017
Book
Wanderlust highlights artists as voyagers who leave their studios to make art. This book (and the...
Electric Guitar Lessons - Ultimate Guide
Music and Education
App
This app has over 300 easy to follow video lessons on how to play the Electric Guitar including...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Mar 16, 2022
Well Done
The old adage “they don’t make movies like this anymore” is no truer than when one is speaking about large budget, big name cast murder mysteries and with what must surely be a disappointing box office for DEATH ON THE NILE, they just might not try again.
And that is too bad for the latest Kenneth Branagh Hercule Poirot mystery DEATH ON THE NILE with Branagh starring, again, as the great Agatha Christie Belgian Detective is the stuff that makes going to movies fun - big characters, major stars, gorgeous scenery and a plot that will keep one guessing until the end.
Branagh’s previous work as Director and star of MURDER OF THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a bit of a disappointment as it was gorgeous and well cast - but the pacing of the film dragged and Branagh decided, inexplicably, to add an action scene to a drawing room mystery.
In DEATH ON THE NILE, Branagh (who Directed this film from an screenplay by Michael Green who adapted the Agatha Christie novel), corrected these mistakes and the film moves along spritely with the actors chewing the scenery - but quickly - making this a very enjoyable movie-going experience.
Branagh, in his second go-around as Poirot, seems much more relaxed and comfortable with his character. This is, perhaps, because they add a backstory to Poirot, so he has much more to set his character upon. On the surface, purists of the the Agatha Christie character will blanche at the thought of adding a backstory, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t work and adds a layer of depth to the character and the film that I wasn’t expecting.
The All-Star cast knows what type of film they are in - and what is expected of them - and they deliver. Gal Gadot, Armie Hammmer, Rose Leslie, Letitia Wright, Jennifer Saunders, Sophie Okonedo and, surprisingly, Russell Brand all shine brightly in their “moment” that their character gets with Poirot. Special notice needs to be made of Annette Bening’s performance. It was GREAT to see this wonderful actress get a role she could sink her teeth into.
As always, with this type of film, the settings and costumes take a prominent position and they do not disappoint. Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos should be hired by the Egyptian Chamber of Commerce for he lovingly shows the sites along the Nile River (circa ‘1930’s) in a beautiful poetic way while the Costumes by Pago Delgado are gorgeous and ornate - without being over-the-top.
If you get a chance to see DEATH ON THE NILE on the big screen, do so, you will be well rewarded for your efforts - and just might help get another of these big budget, big star mysteries made. If not, make sure to check this film out when it starts streaming near you - it’s a ton of fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is too bad for the latest Kenneth Branagh Hercule Poirot mystery DEATH ON THE NILE with Branagh starring, again, as the great Agatha Christie Belgian Detective is the stuff that makes going to movies fun - big characters, major stars, gorgeous scenery and a plot that will keep one guessing until the end.
Branagh’s previous work as Director and star of MURDER OF THE ORIENT EXPRESS was a bit of a disappointment as it was gorgeous and well cast - but the pacing of the film dragged and Branagh decided, inexplicably, to add an action scene to a drawing room mystery.
In DEATH ON THE NILE, Branagh (who Directed this film from an screenplay by Michael Green who adapted the Agatha Christie novel), corrected these mistakes and the film moves along spritely with the actors chewing the scenery - but quickly - making this a very enjoyable movie-going experience.
Branagh, in his second go-around as Poirot, seems much more relaxed and comfortable with his character. This is, perhaps, because they add a backstory to Poirot, so he has much more to set his character upon. On the surface, purists of the the Agatha Christie character will blanche at the thought of adding a backstory, but I’ll be darned if it doesn’t work and adds a layer of depth to the character and the film that I wasn’t expecting.
The All-Star cast knows what type of film they are in - and what is expected of them - and they deliver. Gal Gadot, Armie Hammmer, Rose Leslie, Letitia Wright, Jennifer Saunders, Sophie Okonedo and, surprisingly, Russell Brand all shine brightly in their “moment” that their character gets with Poirot. Special notice needs to be made of Annette Bening’s performance. It was GREAT to see this wonderful actress get a role she could sink her teeth into.
As always, with this type of film, the settings and costumes take a prominent position and they do not disappoint. Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos should be hired by the Egyptian Chamber of Commerce for he lovingly shows the sites along the Nile River (circa ‘1930’s) in a beautiful poetic way while the Costumes by Pago Delgado are gorgeous and ornate - without being over-the-top.
If you get a chance to see DEATH ON THE NILE on the big screen, do so, you will be well rewarded for your efforts - and just might help get another of these big budget, big star mysteries made. If not, make sure to check this film out when it starts streaming near you - it’s a ton of fun.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)