Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Margaret A. Young (1 KP) rated Bears vs Babies in Tabletop Games
Nov 3, 2018 (Updated Nov 3, 2018)
Fun family or party game. (1 more)
Perfect for teens
Beasts vs Babies
Although my sons are known for loving their tech, we find table top games a great way to connect as a family. We really enjoy family game nights,but I have also been surprised by how much time my teen age son spends playing table top games when his friends come to visit. Everyone who comes to visit seems to love our game collection and they usually spend more time with card and board games than computers and gaming consoles.
We bought Bears vs. Babies because my sons loved Exploding Kittens which was created by the same people. While being a completely different game, I think this would appeal to anyone who enjoyed Exploding Kittens.
Bears vs Babies comes packaged in a sturdy box which is covered with fake fur. Although this is attractive, we bought a separate case for travel as the box it comes in is a bit bulky for camping and scouting trips, does not lock closed and the fur would get dirty quite easily. However, if you simply want it to keep it on a shelf it is fine, and the unique box does seem nice for a gift item.
Inside the box is the deck of cards, a rule book, another book of frequently asked questions, which I fact contains more rules, and a cloth playing mat. The frequently asked questions book says that you don't need to read it, but you really do. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to read both, so do yourself a favour and have a quick read before starting the game.
This game has been played by my sons and their friends, ranging in ages from 8 - 13. This game is recommended for ages 10+, but I think it could be played with children as young as six with minor assistance, and my youngest was 9 when we got this.
Although the game is called Bears vs Babies, there is really only one bear unless you count a water bear, which isn't a bear at all. I think Beasts vs Babies would be a more accurate name. Some of the beasts you can make include a Grizzly Bear, a Llama, a Velociraptor, a Manatee and an undead looking rabbit. Or at least you can create creatures which look like a sin against nature with these heads. You collect and play other cards to add a body, legs, arms and accessories to your monsters, trying to get as many points as possible. The monsters are pitted against babies whose also look like abominations, though this is clearly intentional.
Game play is pretty simple. You are allowed to actions per turn. So you can add parts to your monsters, play an action card, draw cards or provoke babies. Babies and monsters are divided into three categories, land, sea and air. When a baby is provoked, all the babies of that category attack all monsters of the same category on the table. The one with the most points wins.
As with any game, we add a few personal twists to it. Instead of just calling provoke to start a battle with babies, you can make each player come up with a unique way to provoke them... energy drink in the baby bottles, hide their teddy bears, and so on. Adding sound effects for the winning monster can add to the fun as well.
While I wouldn't say this is game that can keep children or teens entertained for hours, it is something that is chosen regularly, by both my own children and visitors. A round of the game can take perhaps 20 minutes and this is usually played once in a session before moving on to another game. To be fair, the boys do say they prefer Exploding Kittens, And Exploding Kittens does get played more frequently, but this is still a very welcome addition to our games collection and I am well pleased with our purchase.
We bought Bears vs. Babies because my sons loved Exploding Kittens which was created by the same people. While being a completely different game, I think this would appeal to anyone who enjoyed Exploding Kittens.
Bears vs Babies comes packaged in a sturdy box which is covered with fake fur. Although this is attractive, we bought a separate case for travel as the box it comes in is a bit bulky for camping and scouting trips, does not lock closed and the fur would get dirty quite easily. However, if you simply want it to keep it on a shelf it is fine, and the unique box does seem nice for a gift item.
Inside the box is the deck of cards, a rule book, another book of frequently asked questions, which I fact contains more rules, and a cloth playing mat. The frequently asked questions book says that you don't need to read it, but you really do. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to read both, so do yourself a favour and have a quick read before starting the game.
This game has been played by my sons and their friends, ranging in ages from 8 - 13. This game is recommended for ages 10+, but I think it could be played with children as young as six with minor assistance, and my youngest was 9 when we got this.
Although the game is called Bears vs Babies, there is really only one bear unless you count a water bear, which isn't a bear at all. I think Beasts vs Babies would be a more accurate name. Some of the beasts you can make include a Grizzly Bear, a Llama, a Velociraptor, a Manatee and an undead looking rabbit. Or at least you can create creatures which look like a sin against nature with these heads. You collect and play other cards to add a body, legs, arms and accessories to your monsters, trying to get as many points as possible. The monsters are pitted against babies whose also look like abominations, though this is clearly intentional.
Game play is pretty simple. You are allowed to actions per turn. So you can add parts to your monsters, play an action card, draw cards or provoke babies. Babies and monsters are divided into three categories, land, sea and air. When a baby is provoked, all the babies of that category attack all monsters of the same category on the table. The one with the most points wins.
As with any game, we add a few personal twists to it. Instead of just calling provoke to start a battle with babies, you can make each player come up with a unique way to provoke them... energy drink in the baby bottles, hide their teddy bears, and so on. Adding sound effects for the winning monster can add to the fun as well.
While I wouldn't say this is game that can keep children or teens entertained for hours, it is something that is chosen regularly, by both my own children and visitors. A round of the game can take perhaps 20 minutes and this is usually played once in a session before moving on to another game. To be fair, the boys do say they prefer Exploding Kittens, And Exploding Kittens does get played more frequently, but this is still a very welcome addition to our games collection and I am well pleased with our purchase.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Goosebumps (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I think I speak for most of my generation when I say I grew up on Goosebumps. Many a night I lay terrified and awake after reading one of the twisty tales concocted from the mind of R.L. Stine. Naturally, when Sony announced a Goosebumps movie, I was fearful. But they also had many different stories to tell as there were countless books in the series, all with a different monster. And then they went gave us the plot to the film… I was still fearful.
Goosebumps introduces us to Zach (Dylan Minnette) who, along with his mother, Gale (Amy Ryan), moved to the small town of Madison, Delaware one year after his father passed away. With quick resolve, Zach meets his neighbor, Hannah (Odeya Rush), whom he finds very intriguing. And as any protective father would do, Hannah’s creepy father (Jack Black) tries to scare off Zach. But as Zach is trying to get to the bottom of exactly who this family is, he discovers locked Goosebumps manuscripts in Hannah’s father’s study. Accidentally opening The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena, Zach soon discovers that there is something special about these manuscripts as the stories themselves, or rather the monsters from them, begin to come to life… for real. Can Zach, Hannah and her Father, along with the bumbling Champ (Ryan Lee), save Madison from the monsters? Watch and see.
I had to constantly remind myself of the target audience for this film for about an hour after seeing it. I was hoping for so much more, and while it had mildly entertaining moments, I have feeling that this film is going to fall flat for most adults. Jack Black played the same part he has become really good at over the years, and it almost seems like he is basically playing it straight now. But it was kind of awesome to see some of the ideas of these books come to life, and with the evil Slappy the dummy (voiced by Black) at the helm, things did truly get out of hand. But I just found myself picking out plot holes and inconsistencies in the movie, which is highly unlike me. I may realize things like that much later after watching for most films, but this one I was noticing everything as I was watching it. This doesn’t bode well at all. For example, Hannah takes Zach to an abandoned carnival that was right in the middle of the woods. Hannah explains that they ran out of money before they finished building. So first, no one builds a permanent carnival like this in the middle of the woods, where the trees would interfere with pretty much everything the way it was set up. And it’s not like the trees grew up around the carnival, the technology was too new and the trees too big for that to make any sense. The other thing is, Hannah pulls a big lever and gets power to the carnival to light it up. First, why is there even power to an abandoned carnival? And let’s say we just accept that there is power to this place, we’re missing the second part. Hannah indicates that she visits the place often, but why haven’t the cops showed up to investigate why there was power at this abandoned carnival. The lights were clearly visible for miles, especially from up on top of the Ferris Wheel where we find Hannah and Zach.
But again… I remind myself of the intended audience. There were many youngsters in the screening with us. And most, if not all, really enjoyed the film. There was a continuous stream of laughter or gasps, as appropriate for the feel of the movie, and many after the film were incredibly happy. So I cannot say they missed their mark.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question I always do: will I buy the movie on home release? The answer is probably yes, as I know a couple kids who would really enjoy the film, but I wouldn’t be making the purchase if it were just me in the picture. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. I would have given it a two, but I bring myself back to thinking about the target audience. And they definitely knocked it out of the water in that demographic.
Goosebumps introduces us to Zach (Dylan Minnette) who, along with his mother, Gale (Amy Ryan), moved to the small town of Madison, Delaware one year after his father passed away. With quick resolve, Zach meets his neighbor, Hannah (Odeya Rush), whom he finds very intriguing. And as any protective father would do, Hannah’s creepy father (Jack Black) tries to scare off Zach. But as Zach is trying to get to the bottom of exactly who this family is, he discovers locked Goosebumps manuscripts in Hannah’s father’s study. Accidentally opening The Abominable Snowman of Pasadena, Zach soon discovers that there is something special about these manuscripts as the stories themselves, or rather the monsters from them, begin to come to life… for real. Can Zach, Hannah and her Father, along with the bumbling Champ (Ryan Lee), save Madison from the monsters? Watch and see.
I had to constantly remind myself of the target audience for this film for about an hour after seeing it. I was hoping for so much more, and while it had mildly entertaining moments, I have feeling that this film is going to fall flat for most adults. Jack Black played the same part he has become really good at over the years, and it almost seems like he is basically playing it straight now. But it was kind of awesome to see some of the ideas of these books come to life, and with the evil Slappy the dummy (voiced by Black) at the helm, things did truly get out of hand. But I just found myself picking out plot holes and inconsistencies in the movie, which is highly unlike me. I may realize things like that much later after watching for most films, but this one I was noticing everything as I was watching it. This doesn’t bode well at all. For example, Hannah takes Zach to an abandoned carnival that was right in the middle of the woods. Hannah explains that they ran out of money before they finished building. So first, no one builds a permanent carnival like this in the middle of the woods, where the trees would interfere with pretty much everything the way it was set up. And it’s not like the trees grew up around the carnival, the technology was too new and the trees too big for that to make any sense. The other thing is, Hannah pulls a big lever and gets power to the carnival to light it up. First, why is there even power to an abandoned carnival? And let’s say we just accept that there is power to this place, we’re missing the second part. Hannah indicates that she visits the place often, but why haven’t the cops showed up to investigate why there was power at this abandoned carnival. The lights were clearly visible for miles, especially from up on top of the Ferris Wheel where we find Hannah and Zach.
But again… I remind myself of the intended audience. There were many youngsters in the screening with us. And most, if not all, really enjoyed the film. There was a continuous stream of laughter or gasps, as appropriate for the feel of the movie, and many after the film were incredibly happy. So I cannot say they missed their mark.
Ultimately, I ask myself the same question I always do: will I buy the movie on home release? The answer is probably yes, as I know a couple kids who would really enjoy the film, but I wouldn’t be making the purchase if it were just me in the picture. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. I would have given it a two, but I bring myself back to thinking about the target audience. And they definitely knocked it out of the water in that demographic.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) in Movies
Jul 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 3, 2020)
The introduction of funny Freddy (2 more)
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Death Scene's
Welcome to primetime, bitch!
Contains spoilers, click to show
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors- is a excellent movie, coming off the disappointed Freedy's Revenge, Dream Warriors goes back to the oringal formula, Scary, twisted, dramatic and excellent deaths. Dream Warriors adds more like taking place psychiatric ward, a excellent line that was on the spot, "Welcome to primetime, bitch!". Also Heather Langenkamp and John Saxton return. Also you new charcters that will return in later sequels like Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. A great cast of charcters, a great story and also introduces Freddy's mom and her back story and adds more to Freddy's back story.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Lets talk more: production and deaths.
Production:
Craven's very first concept for the film was to have Freddy Krueger invade the real world: Krueger would haunt the actors filming a new Nightmare on Elm Street sequel. New Line Cinema rejected the metacinematic idea, but years later, Craven's concept was brought to the screen in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.
Before it was decided what script would be used for the film's story, both John Saxon and Robert Englund wrote their own scripts for a third Nightmare film; in Saxon's script called How the Nightmare on Elm Street All Began, which would have been a prequel story, Freddy would ultimately turn out to have been innocent, or at least set up for the murders by Charles Manson, who along with his followers would have been the main culprit of the murders; Freddy would be forced by the mob of angry parents to make a confession of the crimes, which would enrage them further. After they lynch Freddy, he comes back to avenge his wrongful death by targeting the parent's children.
In Englund's treatment called Freddy's Funhouse, the protagonist would have been Tina Gray's older sister, who would have been in college by the time Tina was murdered, and ends up coming back to Springwood to investigate how she died. In the script, Freddy had claimed the 1428 Elm Street house for his own in the dreamworld, setting up booby traps like Nancy did against him.
The death scenes: I love the death scene's in this film. Their are both memorable and excellent and probley my favorite out of all the franchise. You have Phillip's death: Veins pulled out/manipulated into falling off high ledge by Krueger, Jennifer's death: Head smashed into TV screen, Taryn death: Leg slashed with bladed glove, massive amounts of heroin injected into veins and Freddy saying "let's get high", William's death: Lifted, chest impaled with bladed glove and Freddy saying " Sorry kid, but I don't believe in fairy tales", Donald's death: Thrown/impaled through back on car's tail fin by a skeleton verison of krueger and Nancy's death: Stomach impaled twice/gutted with bladed glove/bled out, in dream world cause she sees her dad but its krueger. Also you have the Freddy worm that attacks Kristen.
The plot: During a hallucinatory incident, young Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has her wrists slashed by dream-stalking monster Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund). Her mother, mistaking the wounds for a suicide attempt, sends Kristen to a psychiatric ward, where she joins a group of similarly troubled teens. One of the doctors there is Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp), who had battled Freddy some years before. Nancy senses a potential in Kristen to rid the world of Freddy once and for all.
Dream Warriors: is a return to the oringal formula, and adds more. Adds memorable lines, better deaths, intoduction of comedy side of Freddy and above all a excellent movie.
The ending is sad cause Nancy and John doe die by freedy but it ends their story for now and starts a new story with Kristen, Kincaid and Joey. Its a percent, but sad ending. Ending the oringal maim charcters arc/story, while senting up a new trio of charcters.
Also you can't forget about that excellent theme song, "Dream Warrors" by Dokken.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Needful Things (1993) in Movies
Aug 29, 2019
Verdict: One of King’s Most Interesting Stories
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
Story: Needful Things starts when Leland Gaunt (von Sydow) opens up an antique shop in the small town of Castle Rock, the shop known as Needful Things, see the locals visit, with them getting an unusually attachment to certain items in the shop, items that are clearly meant for each individual person, one that strikes a memory.
As the town starts flocking to the shop, it becomes clear that Leland has alternate plans for the town, with Sheriff Alan Pangborn (Harris) needing to investigate a new increase amount of small crimes, which slowly start to build in seriousness before the town turns to chaos.
Thoughts on Needful Things
Characters – Leland Gaunt is the mysterious shopkeeper that arrives to Castle Rock, his shop has everything the people of the town want and he knows everything about everyone in the town. He trades their desires for favours, which mostly involve going against people in the town, he knows how to remain calm through the conversations, knowing just what they want to hear. Sheriff Alan Pangborn left the big city for a quiet life, he is enjoying his life in the town, with his new fiancée, until the crime levels start to rise, which sees him going from dealing with cats in trees, to murders, can he stop the power Leland has over the town before it is too late. Polly is Alan’s fiancée, she runs the local diner opposite the new shop, she doesn’t run in like some of the other residents, which sees her witnessing the changes from the locals. Nettie is a shy former abuse victim that becomes one of the first customers of the shop, showing how easily people can like what he is willing to offer. We do get a string of people that start to get caught in his ideas.
Performances – Max von Sydow is wonderful to watch in this film, he gives the character the mystery and charisma he needs to seem like a friendly person. Ed Harris is always good to watch, here he does the small town cop routine with ease, playing a good man who must help his people. Bennie Bedelia is strong without getting enough important early scenes to make us understand how disturbed her character’s life is.
Story – The story here follows a small town that gets a new visitor in a shopkeeper that soon starts giving the locals everything they ever wanted, for a price, which sees the town turn to chaos and the sheriff needing to solve the problem before it is too late. This is one of the most interesting of the Stephen King stories, it looks at human desires taking control over our own sanity, how one town can be turned upside down by the ideas of what could be ours, rather than giving us what we need. The story is shown to unfold at a delightful pace because it shows how the deals are put in place with each deal, slowly starting to growing from disruptive behaviour right up to murder. The story does rely on the idea of town working together to prove themselves.
Fantasy/Horror – The fantasy side of the film shows just how Leland can bring about whatever the person in the town wants, he can make the impossible, possible, which only plays into the horrors of just what he can do to this world, when people get everything they ever wanted.
Settings – The film is set in the small town of Castle Rock, this is one location where everybody knows each other, which is one of the trademarks for any Stephen King novel.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are very simple, they do play into the idea of fantasy elements, when we see just what will happen with the power given to the people.
Scene of the Movie – He is a monster.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It does feel like it could have gone a lot darker.
Final Thoughts – This is easily one of the more underrated of Stephen King’s adaptions, it gives us a perfect moral dilemma and keeps everything feel a lot more grounded for a horror one.
Overall: Entertaining throughout.
My Boo Virtual Pet & Mini Game
Games and Entertainment
6.0
Rate It
App
Meet Boo, your very own virtual pet! Enjoy countless hours of fun in this addictive and entertaining...
Siren's Call (Dark Tides #1)
8.0
Rate It
Book
Between desire and love there are some things that can’t stay buried, even in the deep of the...
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!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A tremendously energetic and fun video game spin-off.
In this #TimesUp year, reviewing a film like “Tomb Raider” is just asking for trouble! So where shall I start digging my shallow grave?
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!
Let’s start with the video game… “Tomb Raider” is of course the original video game phenomenon that started in 1993, featuring Lara Croft: someone that teenagers across the land mastur…. did their homework alongside in bedrooms up and down the land. Beauty; athleticism; a fierce independence; unfeasibly large breasts; ridiculously impossible leaps: in this film reboot, Alicia Vikander’s Lara differs from this ideal in just one respect. And before the Dora Milaje smash through my windows and drag me off for incarceration on Mysogeny Island, I’ll point out that this is OBVIOUSLY the least important omission! 🙂
For this film is good… very good.
“I’M SORRY….? WHAT DID YOU SAY DR BOB??” “But this is a film about a VIDEO GAME! … They are all uniformly s****e!”
Beauty, brains and talent: the GB Olympic team will likely be calling.
I know – I can barely bring myself to admit it. But this one really is good. Most of this is down to the reason I was looking forward so much to this one. Alicia Vikander (“Ex Machina“; “The Danish Girl“; “The Light Between Oceans“) is such a class act, and here she is so much more than just a one-dimensional action hero. She hurts, she mourns, she feels guilt, she’s vulnerable. And it’s all there on her face. Great acting skill. She also kicks ass like no woman on film since Emily Blunt in “Edge of Tomorrow“!
Don’t you just hate it when you drop a bag of flour in your kitchen?
The story by Evan Daugherty and Geneva Robertson-Dworet (with Alastair Siddons adding to the screenplay) rockets off in great style with a “fox and hounds” bike chase around the City of London which is brilliantly done and sets up Croft’s character with the minimum of tedious back story. Switch to the main story and Lara is struggling to face the fact that her father (Dominic West, “Money Monster“), seen in flashback, is finally dead after going off to Japan seven years previously in search of the legendary tomb of ancient sorceress Queen Himiko. The Croft corp. COO (Kristin Scott Thomas, “Darkest Hour“) persuades Lara its time to sign the necessary papers, but on the verge of this act the lawyer Mr Yaffe (Derek Jacobi, “Murder on the Orient Express“) lets a significant cat out of the bag and sets Lara off on the trail of her long-dead father’s original mission.
In happier times. Daddy (Dominic West) goes off on yet another trip from Croft Manor.
It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s really well done. But I reckon the writers should have named Jeffrey Boam, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes as co-collaborators, for the film plagerises terribly from “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”. In two or three places, the similarities are shocking! As in the best of Lucas traditions though there are some breathtaking set-pieces, with the best of them staged at the top of a raging waterfall that’s just plane ridiculous! (Even if it plagerises blatantly from “The Lost World”!).
English and patient. Kristin Scott Thomas as the guiding hand at the Croft corporation.
The movie’s tremendous to look at too, with cinematography by George Richmond (“Kingsman“; “Eddie the Eagle“) and (aside from a dodgy helicopter effect) good special effect by Max Poolman (“District 9”) and his team.
My one criticism would be that Vogel – the chief villain, played by Walton Goggins (“The Hateful Eight“) – is rather too unremittingly evil to have two sweetly smiling young children in his desk photo. One can only hope he faces a nasty demise!
Never trust a guy with a beard. Walton Goggins, a bit over the top as the villain of the piece.
The film is directed by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug, in what looks to be his first “non-Norwegian” film. Roar by name; roar by nature! He does a great job. An early “summer blockbuster” actioner that gets two thumbs up from me. What a pleasant surprise!