Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jan 25, 2021
New Vibes, New Dopeness
When I first saw that Sony was playing nice with Disney/Marvel, I almost lost it when I saw that Spider-Man would make an appearance in Captain America: Civil War. Nerd Moment: I’ve always thought that all of the Marvel properties belonged together and this was a step in the right direction. It’s been amazing what’s happened since. In this third reboot since the new century, Spider-Man: Homecoming is the story of a young Peter Parker handling his role as a teenager and a webslinging superhero.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 7
Characters: 7
Peter (Tom Holland) is a lovable kid surrounded by a fun cast of friends and foes. They took a different and, in my opinion, smarter route by making Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) younger and more relatable. Not only did it pay off but it helped contribute to side jokes in the story involving Happy (Jon Favreau) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.). Yes, there are so many characters to love here, both familiar and new…that is until we get to the villain played by one of my favorite actors Michael Keaton. Don’t get me wrong, he wasn’t horrible, I just couldn’t buy his motivation which made it hard at times to connect to the overall story and conflict.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Watching some of these scenes play out seriously made me wish I was Spider-Man. The aerial combat and clever use of webs is such a treat to watch and experience, both at home. and in the theater. Marvel hit another home run here with cinematic perfection that stretches all over the great city of New York.
Conflict: 10
The conflict isn’t just about Spider-Man fighting bad guys. Rather it’s about having to do all of this and be a kid at the same time…and impress Tony Stark…and get used to his new suit…and keep all of this a secret from his caretaker. So many things wrapped into one makes this such a fun ride. Yes, there is plenty of spider fights to enjoy, but there is so much more to love about the movie as a whole.
Entertainment Value: 9
Memorability: 8
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
Really enjoyed the story and how it plays into the Marvel universe as a whole. A few twists here and there keep things interesting. Again there is so much driving conflict here and character growth that it’s easy to miss the complexities of everything involved in the story. Again, not in love with Vulture’s motivation, but it doesn’t diminish things too badly.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 90
The difficulty of Peter trying to get used to his new suit alone was enough to keep me beaming watching this movie. Marvel movies are known for packing a mega punch and Spider-Man: Homecoming definitely stands up there as one of the stronger ones. Great movie.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Slightly Disappointed
So, here we are. At last. After a couple of great movies, a really poor third movie and a disastrous reboot/sequel, it was beginning to look as though one of our all time favourite superheroes was never going to get another movie to do him justice. And then, in what was already a hero packed, action roller-coaster of a movie, Spider-Man finally returned home to Marvel in spectacular fashion during Captain America: Civil War. A fantastic portrayal of Peter Parker and an even better Spider-Man, it was enough to leave us wanting more and enough to get us pretty excited when standalone movie Homecoming was announced soon after.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Ok, so I’ve been trying to think about how I feel after watching it, and it’s a tough one. This is a Spider-Man movie by Marvel that feels closer to how a Spider-Man movie should be than any of the previous movies before it. And Tom Holland is just a perfect Peter Parker. But, I kind of felt disappointed by it. It didn’t thrill me as much as other Marvel movies, and certainly not as much as Civil War did. When Spider-Man shows up in Civil War, he’s an enthusiastic teen with a lot to learn, but he still manages to pull off some pretty jaw dropping action. In Homecoming it just feels like the momentum has been lost – too much awkward teen, not enough action hero. The awe and thrill of swooping through the New York skyline that we got in the first Spider-Man movie, there’s nothing like that here. I wonder if, for me anyway, it’s some kind of superhero fatigue. But then I didn’t feel that way about Wonder Woman recently, so I’m just not sure. I just can’t quite put my finger on it. I feel ashamed of myself for not liking it as much as I was expecting!
Most of the big action pieces, such as the Staten Island ferry scene, have already been shown pretty much on their entirety during the trailer. And the climax, involving Spidey and Vulture on a plane, is fairly difficult to follow, as it’s set in the dark with the plane veering out of control. Probably the most impressive sequence is on the Washington monument, a traditional lift-about-to-fall scenario. Spidey is struggling to get used to his upgraded suit, he’s nervous about being so high up (and so are we, this scene is very well done) and he’s unsure of what to do best to save the day. It’s a tense scene, perfectly handled and we really feel for Peter Parker.
There’s plenty of humour and heart throughout and a good supporting cast. Michael Keaton is impressive and suitably menacing as The Vulture and Robert Downey Jr is… well, his usual self. I just hope that as part of the next Avengers movie and beyond, I feel a bit more impressed next time than I did after this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Miss Congeniality 2 - Armed and Fabulous (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As the weather starts to warm, indicating the coming spring and summer seasons, scores of sequels arrive at local box offices. Sequels have always been desired by Hollywood because, thanks in part to the success of previous titles in the series, a built in audience helps assure big openings.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
With the Ring 2 kicking off the sequel frenzy to solid numbers this year, Warner Bros. is hoping to cash in on the success of the Sandra Bullock hit Miss Congeniality, with the release of Miss Congeniality 2 :Armed and Fabulous.
The film opens a few weeks after the events of the first film and underscores agent Gracie Hart’s struggles to get back into field work now that she’s a celebrity. When an undercover operation goes sour in part to Gracie’s new found notoriety, it is decided that she will be removed from field work and placed as the new face of the F.B.I. in an effort to increase public image. Assigned to watch her back, Gracie is partnered with a no-nonsense agent named Sam Fuller (Regina King), who has severe attitude issues and is less than thrilled to watch over Gracie especially when Gracie has become a diva thanks to her new found celebrity and numerous appearances on talk shows.
When the current Miss America, and good friend, Cheryl (Heather Burns) is kidnapped along with pageant host Stan Fields (William Shatner), Gracie sets off to Vegas in an effort to help with the case. Her notoriety and unorthodox tactics runs afoul of the local agent in charge Collins (Treat Williams), who wants nothing more than for Gracie to head back to New York and make his life easier.
While the film does have an interesting setup, it soon becomes an overlong sketch comedy as Gracie and Sam show up in costumes ranging from an old Jewish retiree to Tina Turner, with sadly very few laughs in between. I was a big fan of the first film but this effort seems like a project that was created simply to cash in on the success of the first without offering anything new.
The charm and wit of the first film are sadly missed, as this film just plods along without any real payoff. Bullock seems to be walking through her part without the sparkle and shine that made her the beloved girl next door. Fuller seems to have only two emotions and that is pure rage or exasperation. The rest of the cast does not fare much better as Shatner is forced to vamp it up with very little to work with. Only Diedrich Bader gets some laughs albeit cheaply playing the over the top flamboyant fashion consultant named Joel.
Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt are noticeably absent from this sequel. It seems that they wisely decided to stay clear of this clunker. I had hoped that this film would recapture some of the charm of the original but it plays out as an uninspired effort that seems to have had very little care put into it. My advice, save this for a rental.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
J.K. Simmons recommended Juno (2007) in Movies (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Gold (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The pursuit of the big gold strike drives Kenny Wells (Matthew McConaughey) deep into the jungles of Indonesia. Wells is a third generation Nevada prospector trying to keep the mining company from going under. He is unable to secure a loan or investment for mining projects. He is watching his reputation take a major hit, being seen as an alcoholic and laughing stock in the industry. He is down to his last dime and working out of a bar when he pawns his girlfriend Kay’s (Bryce Dallas Howard) watch and gets on a plane to Indonesia. He is headed to meet an eager geologist Michael Acosta (Edgar Ramirez) also in the last throws of his career in. The put together Acosta and disheveled Wells strike a deal. The unlikely duo head into the uncharted jungle in search of the mother lode. After months of failure, through Wells bout with Malaria, a crew who quit and monsoon weather the impossible happens and the two have found what looks like the largest gold deposit in history. The two men who were outcast in their fields are now the most popular miners on the planet. Everyone wants to be a part of this deal and get a piece of the gold. While Acosta stays in Indonesia to operate the day to day of the mining operation Wells heads back to Reno to secure money for digging up the gold. It’s not long that major mining companies and Wall Street investors are knocking on Wells door. Whisking him off to New York in private planes and throwing lavish parties. The now begins the real test to see if he can handle the success and not blow the largest strike of his life.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Directed by Stephen Gaghan (Syriana) Gold is a wild, based on true events, story. Which means it probably has some truths, some half-truths and some almost too wild to be true but maybe true moments. McConaughey’s performance as Wells is excellent. The character at times is a slobbish, out of control alcoholic, that appears to be over his head and out of his element. But most of the time his determination to make a name for himself and his never say no attitude has you rooting for him, even when his is passed out in his underwear on the floor. The rest of the performances are good in support. The relationship with Ramirez’ character and their unlikely friendship is really well done. It took two people who seemed completely different and allowed us to see how they could come together for one goal to become good partners and friends. The story overall is good not great. It took us on a journey with Wells and mixed in really serious themes with outlandish situations. There are times that Wells antics seem forced and don’t completely disrupt the flow but definitely slow it down. It had those moments that definitely made me laugh and others that were really emotional and raw. In that way it was a blend of comedy and drama. Which for the most part mixed together really well. The film took place in the 1980’s and definitely was shot in a way that gave it a feel of the era. I enjoyed the overall the cinematography not overly spectacular but good.
The film was an enjoyable experience for me. A couple of memorable moments and a surprise, to me, at the end. There were some stretches in the story and some over the top antics but still fun.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated House of Wax (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
As sure as the winter season brings snow and rain, summer is sure to bring sequels and remakes to theaters across the land. With many classic horror films such as “The Amityville Horror:”, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” already released and with “The Fog”, pending, Hollywood is trying to find gold from the past.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
The latest remake to make the screen is The House of Wax which shares precious little with the 1953 Vincent Price classic aside from the title house and an abundance of wax figures. The story follows Carly Jones, (Elisa Cuthbert), a young college graduate who is planning to move from her small town to take an internship in New York. Her boyfriend Wade (Jared Padalecki) is unsure if he will follow her to the big city which is a source of tension between the otherwise happy couple.
Carly and Wade decide to take a road trip to a big sporting event, and have their friends Paige (Paris Hilton), Blake (Robert Ri’chard), Dalton (John Abrahams), and Carly’s brother Nick (Chad Michael Murray), along for the ride. In a true horror film cliche, the road trip becomes and overnight campout in a remote backwoods area where drinking, sex, and other youthful merriment abounds.
Of course the merriment is interrupted when a strange encounter with a mysterious truck and an unexpectedly broken car fan belt in the morning forces Carly and wade to stay behind to locate the needed part in a nearby town while their friends continue on to the game.
The local town is mostly empty, and looks like something out of the 60’s aside from numerous signs that tout the local wax museum. While exploring the empty town, Carly and Wade stumble upon a church where a service is in session, and meet Bo, (Brian Van Holt), who is the local mechanic who tells them he can get the needed part as soon as the service has ended. With time on their hands, Carly and Wade visit the local wax museum which is equally deserted, but filled with life like figures.
When Carly suddenly sees a bizarre figure lurking in the shadows the events soon unfold leaving Carly and Wade trapped in a nightmare that is out of control. As if that was not bad enough, their friends have become stuck in traffic and decide to forgo the big game and return to pick up Carly and Wade not knowing bizarre nightmare they are about to encounter.
Despite some flaws, House generally works and as horror films go, is entertaining. Sure the characters and plot are paper thin and characters seem to have a severe lack of common sense, yet despite the flaws, there are some good moments. The film goes almost 50 minutes before the mayhem starts, but when it does, the killings are some of the most brutal in horror film history. On more than one occasion during my press screener did I see a member of the audience hiding their face in the shoulder of a significant other during some of the films more intense moments.
The film also has a good villain that while not well defined, is nevertheless chilling and projects menace very well. The cast works well with one another given the limitations of the genre, and the pacing of the film by first time director Jaume Serra is effective in adding a bit of tension yet keeping the adrenalin moving during key parts.
My biggest issue with the film would be the ending that I thought took the Hollywood way out, with a big effects spectacle instead of staying focused on the characters and their plight, That being said, as mindless Summer thrills The House of Wax is a decent if albeit at times lacking film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Poseidon (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The summer movie season has arrived in grand style with the first thrill ride of the season In Poseidon, viewers are taking to the very edge and beyond in one of the better adventure films in recent memory.
Based on the 1972 original, the film once again follows a ship in peril and a group of survivors attempting to save themselves from certain doom. Onboard the Poseidon, the guests are a mixed bag of society, but fate is about to bring them all together when their transatlantic crossing hits a rather unexpected snag in the form of a massive tidal wave which capsizes the boat leaving the survivors to deal with an upside down ship and the constant threat of drowning.
Wasting little time on character backgrounds and motivations, the film gets right to the action as within 10 minutes, the action is underway, and rarely lets up over the roughly 99 minutes of the films run time.
After the disaster has hit and the survivors survey the carnage caused by the wave, Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), decides to ignore the advice of the ships captain and follow a maverick named Dylan (Josh Lucas), out of the ballroom in an effort not only to find his daughter, but a way out of the ship. Joining the duo are a young mother named Maggie (Jacinda Barrett), and her son, as well as business man Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). As the group ventures to find a way out, they do in time meet up with Roberts’s daughter and her finance as well as a few other survivors.
As the group is forced to work with one another for survival, conflicts arise as Dylan and Robert clash over the best course of action. It is learned that Robert was a former fireman who after a heroic act was able to become Mayor of New York, but for reasons unknown was not able to deal with his success which had caused his wife to leave him. Now Michael spends his days in luxury being an overprotective father to his daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum).
While much of Michael’s past is uncovered in a few lines tossed at him in a moment of anger, even less is known about Dylan. Prior to the accident, he revealed to Maggie that he takes money from people who like to get into arguments and play cards. Only Richard Nelsons character is given a bit more background as we learn that he is a Gay business man whose lover has left him for another in London, leaving Richard alone, and suicidal. The fact that Richard is preparing to jump overboard and is stopped only by the site of the closing wave allows his character to show some diversity as in the face of disaster, he finds new meaning and purpose.
The remainder of the film is packed with narrow escapes, danger, death, and the ever constant menace of the water which like an unrelenting killer is never far away from the group and stalks them without mercy at every turn.
While some of the situations are beyond reason, the film has some impressive sets and visuals, and Director Wolfgang Peterson keeps the pacing of the film fresh as it never stops long enough to loose its momentum.
The leads do the best they can with their stock characters, yet this is compensated for by the thrills of the film and the physicality of the rolls. Josh Lucas reportedly broke his arm while filming the movie underscoring just how much the actors put themselves into the film.
While Poseidon is not likely to be a cinematic classic, it is an enjoyable if flawed summer film that provides enough thrills to keep you entertained.
Based on the 1972 original, the film once again follows a ship in peril and a group of survivors attempting to save themselves from certain doom. Onboard the Poseidon, the guests are a mixed bag of society, but fate is about to bring them all together when their transatlantic crossing hits a rather unexpected snag in the form of a massive tidal wave which capsizes the boat leaving the survivors to deal with an upside down ship and the constant threat of drowning.
Wasting little time on character backgrounds and motivations, the film gets right to the action as within 10 minutes, the action is underway, and rarely lets up over the roughly 99 minutes of the films run time.
After the disaster has hit and the survivors survey the carnage caused by the wave, Robert Ramsey (Kurt Russell), decides to ignore the advice of the ships captain and follow a maverick named Dylan (Josh Lucas), out of the ballroom in an effort not only to find his daughter, but a way out of the ship. Joining the duo are a young mother named Maggie (Jacinda Barrett), and her son, as well as business man Richard Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). As the group ventures to find a way out, they do in time meet up with Roberts’s daughter and her finance as well as a few other survivors.
As the group is forced to work with one another for survival, conflicts arise as Dylan and Robert clash over the best course of action. It is learned that Robert was a former fireman who after a heroic act was able to become Mayor of New York, but for reasons unknown was not able to deal with his success which had caused his wife to leave him. Now Michael spends his days in luxury being an overprotective father to his daughter Jennifer (Emmy Rossum).
While much of Michael’s past is uncovered in a few lines tossed at him in a moment of anger, even less is known about Dylan. Prior to the accident, he revealed to Maggie that he takes money from people who like to get into arguments and play cards. Only Richard Nelsons character is given a bit more background as we learn that he is a Gay business man whose lover has left him for another in London, leaving Richard alone, and suicidal. The fact that Richard is preparing to jump overboard and is stopped only by the site of the closing wave allows his character to show some diversity as in the face of disaster, he finds new meaning and purpose.
The remainder of the film is packed with narrow escapes, danger, death, and the ever constant menace of the water which like an unrelenting killer is never far away from the group and stalks them without mercy at every turn.
While some of the situations are beyond reason, the film has some impressive sets and visuals, and Director Wolfgang Peterson keeps the pacing of the film fresh as it never stops long enough to loose its momentum.
The leads do the best they can with their stock characters, yet this is compensated for by the thrills of the film and the physicality of the rolls. Josh Lucas reportedly broke his arm while filming the movie underscoring just how much the actors put themselves into the film.
While Poseidon is not likely to be a cinematic classic, it is an enjoyable if flawed summer film that provides enough thrills to keep you entertained.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hummingbird Project (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Contemporary technology drama comes to the silver screen in the form of The Hummingbird Project starring Jesse Eisenberg, Alexander Skarsgård, and Salma Hayek. The film’s premise is realistic enough: A pair of insiders at a big Wall Street company defect to start a project for a rival firm – to built a single fiber optic connection between a stock exchange in Kansas City and the New York Stock Exchange. This was realistic enough that my lack of knowledge on the history of Wall Street’s networking had me looking up later to see if there was any truth or basis to portions of the plot. Unfortunately, I can’t seem to find anything referencing a Kansas City Stock Exchange. Unless they were referring to livestock? Because there was a Kansas City Livestock Exchange. Anyway, my biases up front – despite my clear lacking of aforementioned knowledge, I am a tech geek with experience in networking and related technology fields. So, a premise like this has a lot to attract my attention. There is admittedly much to enjoy about dramas regarding our contemporary plights in the realm of technology, because that’s where a lot of work is centered. Gone are the days of building railroads. But our internet infrastructure…
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
The film does a fairly good job representing the intense difficulty of such a project: it’s something like one thousand miles of straight line to run one fiber optic connection without obstruction. Most people would not think about what goes into making that into reality, which is the draw for most of the film’s conflict. I do however recognize that centering the plot on a large scale construction job of an internet cable doesn’t exactly scream excitement for most people; and this is especially true when the end goal is to shave off one millisecond from their current transaction times. Yet, this arguably ironic dynamic actually ended up being somewhat of a draw for me. Halfway through the film the question arises, “All this for just a millisecond of increased speed?” That’s the point though, and I wish the film would have delved deeper into these kinds of themes. This represents my chief criticism: all of the elements are here for a truly stellar drama but everything is explored at only a shallow or moderate depth. The characters have decent arcs, thrown some difficult challenges and curveballs to overcome, but Jesse Eisenberg’s character only briefly touches on the back-story that truly drives him, and while Alexander Skarsgård‘s character is more fully fleshed out his arc is essentially basic. I do enjoy the role reversal as one would usually expect to see Jesse Eisenberg playing the socially awkward genius programmer and Alexander Skarsgård to play the ambitious go-getter who runs the project, but they take opposite roles to great effect. The actors all do great here for the most part, including the excellent Michael Mando in a supporting role. My only complaint here is the acting dips a bit into melodrama later in the film, but this is mostly attributed to subplots that edge into the unbelievable.
Ironically Hummingbird Project works best at representing its core premise of what most would consider a mundane construction project. The actors do well, and I especially enjoy Alexander Skarsgård‘s portrayal of the lonely genius, but their underlying drama and back-stories are a bit of a mixed bag. Some of it works decently well while other elements do not – particularly late in the film. Sadly the themes at play are a bit too obvious and underexplored, but it is an appreciated attempt to represent a seldom explored aspect of contemporary industry.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!