Search
Search results
Kevin Phillipson (9967 KP) rated American Assassin (2017) in Movies
Mar 17, 2019
Michael Keaton (1 more)
Taylor kitsch
Very violent thriller not great but it does keep up on the edge of seat one of the best parts of the movie surprised me was Taylor kitsch I know he has a bad reputation since john carter but here he's rather good which surprised me definitely worth a rewatch
Gisell Middleton (189 KP) rated Liars’ Paradox in Books
Nov 13, 2018
As a fan of Taylor Stevens’ Munroe series, I was at once skeptical and hopeful. Could this start to a new series be as inventive, creative, intriguing and amazing as the one I loved but would not see more of? The answer is a big yes! I was so excited when I began this novel and it gripped me in the first few paragraphs. I was thrilled when it introduced complex and bold characters. I was hooked when it provided an interesting and layered plot. I miss Vanessa “Michael” Munroe, but I am very glad for Jack and Jill.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Lone Survivor (2014) in Movies
Jan 26, 2021 (Updated Feb 2, 2021)
Mark Walhbeg (1 more)
Ben Foster
Never Out of the Fight
Lone Survivor- is a intense action thriller thats based on a true story. Its slow at first, but around halfway in, it gets good.
The plot:In 2005 Afghanistan, Navy SEALs Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matthew "Axe" Axelson (Ben Foster) deploy on a mission of surveillance and to take out Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. Though spotted by goatherds, Luttrell and his team decide not to kill them. But one of the Afghans alerts a group of Taliban fighters to the invaders, and a terrible battle ensues, in which the SEALs find themselves hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.
Its a must see film.
The plot:In 2005 Afghanistan, Navy SEALs Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg), Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch) and Matthew "Axe" Axelson (Ben Foster) deploy on a mission of surveillance and to take out Taliban leader Ahmad Shah. Though spotted by goatherds, Luttrell and his team decide not to kill them. But one of the Afghans alerts a group of Taliban fighters to the invaders, and a terrible battle ensues, in which the SEALs find themselves hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.
Its a must see film.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Intense and excessive
Before watching this I had become a fan of both House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects, so I did appreciate Rob Zombie as a filmmaker. But it still seemed like a strange idea to have him direct the remake of Halloween.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
This remake is 2 hours long, it's mostly stretched to that length due to the scenes involving 10-year-old Michael.
Daeg Faerch plays the young Mikey, and does well, he's creepy and disturbing. Rob's wife Sheri Moon Zombie of course has a role, here as Mikey's mom, she's fine here as the role fits her well. The problem is everyone else, William Forsythe plays Mike's stepdad who happens to be a disgusting excuse for a human being, as is the bully played by Daryl Sabara. The movie then shifts to events at the asylum. Malcolm Mcdowell plays Dr. Sam Loomis. Mcdowell is a good actor, and he gives a pretty good performance here. But he still pales in comparison to the great Donald Pleasence. The movie than movies to 15-years later.
Scout Taylor Compton plays Laurie Strode, she does good, but I was disappointed that she was introduced making a sex joke. Rob couldn't even let the nerdy final girl be sweet and innocent. Needless to say, others are worse.
The movie has LOTS of profanity which honestly drags down any attempts at actually making characters likable. The sex and nudity have also been ramped up.
The violence is definitely brutal, but that's Zombie's style, I felt that Michael was quite terrifying here. Tyler Mane plays Michael, and his 7-foot tall stature is so intimidating.
Overall, Rob Zombie does a good job at developing the story of Michael Myers, and at making some really intense and brutal death scenes. But he does so at the expense of having likable characters and good dialog. I still like it, but I can understand why others wouldn't.
JT (287 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Officer Brian Taylor’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) opening monologue in which we see a car chase and shoot out from the front dashboard camera of a Los Angeles black and white, sets the tone for what will be a gripping action flick.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
KyleQ (267 KP) rated Halloween II (2009) in Movies
Jul 20, 2020
Honestly, I thought this was best entry in the series since Carpenter's Original.
Halloween II opens up with a hospital sequence referencing the original Halloween II, and honestly, this hospital scene was not only the most intense and frightening sequence from a Halloween movie, but it was also one of the most frightening and intense sequences I've seen period.
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
After that Halloween II delves into wholly original territory.
Scout Taylor Compton's Laurie Strode is suffering from PTSD, she lives with her bestie Annie Brackett (Danielle Harris) and Annie's dad, Lee Brackett (Brad Douriff). The sight of Annie causes Laurie to remember that which pains her, straining their relationship. Laurie feels like she is losing her sanity, she's even dreamt of her mother (Sheri Moon Zombie) with a white horse, calling for her.
Meanwhile, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm Mcdowell), truly believing Michael (Tyler Mane) to be dead, is getting rich off of his book which tells the story of the first film. Loomis is now wholly enveloped with this world.
But Michael is returning to Haddonfield once more.
I can see why longtime fans would have trouble getting into this. Michael's look has been changed for the first time, in parts he doesn't wear his mask, he dresses like a hobo, he has long hair and a great big bushy beard.
The movie also obviously takes characters into strange and different directions than previous installments.
But I don't think that's reason enough to hate it and bash it.
Halloween II is one the most brutal, intense, and disturbing horror movies I've seen in a while, and frankly, that's what I want in a horror movie. Horror should try to frighten and disturb its viewers.
It's a very original entry, but well worth it if you have an open mind.
I minus one star because I don't understand the white horse, it feels pointless, otherwise, I thought it was great!
Kyera (8 KP) rated Rise of the Elgen (Michael Vey, #2) in Books
Feb 1, 2018
Michael is a 14-year-old who has electrical powers and is joined in this novel by his fellow Electro-Clan members. In this book, Michael and his friends must battle the Elgen again in order to save his mother from their clutches. It was nice to see the world we had come to inhabit in the first book expanded in the second. We got a deeper look into the Elgen, their plans and one of their other secret locations. If you haven't read the first book, this may spoil you so please read that (or my first review) before you read the second book's review.
I felt the same way about the second book as I did the first. The overall idea of this story was very intriguing, although I found the writing to be lacking at times. One of the biggest elements that drew me out of the story was the author's inability to choose a word other than <i>said</i> to describe when a person was speaking. It became frustrating to listen to the characters talk when the entire page just repeated, "he said... she said... then they said... he said again." By that point, I was pretty over the word said. It definitely detracted from the story, which I found enjoyable overall.
There was a little more character development in this novel than the first, as I found myself connecting to the characters more. Although I still don't find that they are three-dimensional enough, I do care if they succeed or not. The relationship between Michael and Taylor was very insta-love-y in the first book, but I liked seeing more support for it in this book. It is starting to feel more authentic and less like an overused trope.
As there are five other books in the series, I hope that the character development and world building will be improved upon. It definitely continued from the first to the second book and I felt more knowledgeable about the world as the story continued. The author definitely writes for a younger audience; the writing style was not as developed or mature as I would expect for a young adult reader.
I would recommend it to middle-grade readers, as well as young adult/teen readers who enjoy their fantasy books in a familiar setting. Don't expect flowery writing or deep characterization, just let the story take you on a fun, easy journey.
I felt the same way about the second book as I did the first. The overall idea of this story was very intriguing, although I found the writing to be lacking at times. One of the biggest elements that drew me out of the story was the author's inability to choose a word other than <i>said</i> to describe when a person was speaking. It became frustrating to listen to the characters talk when the entire page just repeated, "he said... she said... then they said... he said again." By that point, I was pretty over the word said. It definitely detracted from the story, which I found enjoyable overall.
There was a little more character development in this novel than the first, as I found myself connecting to the characters more. Although I still don't find that they are three-dimensional enough, I do care if they succeed or not. The relationship between Michael and Taylor was very insta-love-y in the first book, but I liked seeing more support for it in this book. It is starting to feel more authentic and less like an overused trope.
As there are five other books in the series, I hope that the character development and world building will be improved upon. It definitely continued from the first to the second book and I felt more knowledgeable about the world as the story continued. The author definitely writes for a younger audience; the writing style was not as developed or mature as I would expect for a young adult reader.
I would recommend it to middle-grade readers, as well as young adult/teen readers who enjoy their fantasy books in a familiar setting. Don't expect flowery writing or deep characterization, just let the story take you on a fun, easy journey.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 10, 2020
I found 21 Bridges to be a pretty entertaining action flick, even if it is a relatively predictable straight shooter.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
The narrative revolves around two small time criminals gunning down 8 police officers during an escalated robbery, causing the whole of Manhattan to shut down as the NYPD hunt them before they can flee the city.
Like any cop thriller worth it's salt, it's of course not that simple, and has some twists and turns along the way. This is probably the main issue I had with 21 Bridges - the twist is easy to see from a mile off, and the pretty standard action sequences means that it doesn't particularly elevate itself above the competition.
The strengths here lie in the cast. Chadwick Boseman is a brilliant lead as detective Andre Davis, who is heading up the entire investigation. Stephan James is also great as Michael, one of the robbers. He's a man completely out of his depth, and is a sympathetic "antagonist". There are also some decent turns from J.K. Simmons, Sienna Miller, Taylor Kitsch, and Keith David.
All of the performances keep 21 Bridges pretty grounded for an action film, it's more of a thriller in that respect.
I'd say it's worth a watch, you could certainly do a lot worse when it comes to New York cop dramas.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)