Search
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated John Wick. Chapter 4 (2023) in Movies
Mar 26, 2023
More of the Same - which is a GOOD thing
Once a series gets to it’s 4th installment - and that installment is NOT a reboot or “prequel” - the audience for said series is pretty much settled in. There is a rabid group of movie-going watchers that are looking for the intimate details and Easter Eggs to further their immersion into this world while the rest of the movie going public has probably moved on and, just might, check it out on a whim.
Such is the case with JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 - the 4th installment of the Keanu Reeves led/Chad Stahelski Directed series that is long on style, action, intrigue and mythology while being low on logical plot-lines and…well…daylight.
But this won’t matter to the John Wick movie-goer. They are getting more of the same - cartoon violence professionally created by Stahelski and Reeves with plenty of bad guys battling (and losing) to Wick while the mysterious, underground society that Wick has run afoul of tries to take him down.
This insider intrigue will be enriching for the true John Wick fan but will be inconsequential for the casual movie-goer as these plot machinations are just an excuse to line Reeves up against seemingly insurmountable obstacle after seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
And what a journey it is. Starting with a tussle at the Osaka Continental (featuring veteran Martial Artists Hiroki Sanada and Donnie Yen) to a battle in Germany to the final in Paris, JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 is just one, long stylized fight sequence with both Stahelski (the Director and Fight Choreographer) and Reeves (as Wick) showing off their talents in new and interesting ways.
There are way too many fight sequences to mention, but there is one sequence in a building that is shot from on high (reminiscent of watching video game play) that is the most interesting/effective - but they all are a ton of fun.
Bill Skarsgard (Pennywise the Clown in the IT movies) is along as the Marquis (cool name) who is in charge of bringing Wick down. He is joined by the always good Clancy Brown (the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob) on the “bad guy” side while Wick regulars Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and the late, great Lance Reddick line up on Wick’s side.
It is a fun roller-coaster ride - if a bit long at almost 3 hours (the middle sags a bit) - that will entertain casual fans of action flicks while satisfying the hard-core “Wick-aphiles” (if that is a term) with a further peeling back of a layer of this world.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 - the 4th installment of the Keanu Reeves led/Chad Stahelski Directed series that is long on style, action, intrigue and mythology while being low on logical plot-lines and…well…daylight.
But this won’t matter to the John Wick movie-goer. They are getting more of the same - cartoon violence professionally created by Stahelski and Reeves with plenty of bad guys battling (and losing) to Wick while the mysterious, underground society that Wick has run afoul of tries to take him down.
This insider intrigue will be enriching for the true John Wick fan but will be inconsequential for the casual movie-goer as these plot machinations are just an excuse to line Reeves up against seemingly insurmountable obstacle after seemingly insurmountable obstacle.
And what a journey it is. Starting with a tussle at the Osaka Continental (featuring veteran Martial Artists Hiroki Sanada and Donnie Yen) to a battle in Germany to the final in Paris, JOHN WICK: CHAPTER 4 is just one, long stylized fight sequence with both Stahelski (the Director and Fight Choreographer) and Reeves (as Wick) showing off their talents in new and interesting ways.
There are way too many fight sequences to mention, but there is one sequence in a building that is shot from on high (reminiscent of watching video game play) that is the most interesting/effective - but they all are a ton of fun.
Bill Skarsgard (Pennywise the Clown in the IT movies) is along as the Marquis (cool name) who is in charge of bringing Wick down. He is joined by the always good Clancy Brown (the voice of Mr. Krabs on Spongebob) on the “bad guy” side while Wick regulars Ian McShane, Lawrence Fishburne and the late, great Lance Reddick line up on Wick’s side.
It is a fun roller-coaster ride - if a bit long at almost 3 hours (the middle sags a bit) - that will entertain casual fans of action flicks while satisfying the hard-core “Wick-aphiles” (if that is a term) with a further peeling back of a layer of this world.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ava (2020) in Movies
Oct 8, 2020
Great mother/daughter scene in the middle of a generic assassin flick
To give you everything you need to know about the Jessica Chastain assassin flick AVA is to read the IMDB description of the film:
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
"Ava is a deadly assassin who works for a black ops organization, traveling the globe specializing in high profile hits. When a job goes dangerously wrong she is forced to fight for her own survival."
Pretty generic, right? There are only about a dozen films that I can think of off the top of my head that would fit this description. So...what separates this one to make it worth watching?
Not much.
Chastain stars as Ava, a deadly assassin who...oh, you get it. When the "job goes dangerously wrong", she heads back to Boston and into the arms of her loving family - who want nothing to do with her.
Chastain is good, but nothing special as Ava...she seems to be able to pull off the physicality of this role quite well (like Jennifer Lawrence in RED SPARROW or Charlize Theron in ATOMIC BLONDE). The head of the shadowy organization that Ava works, played by Collin Farrell, is generically shadowy and Farrell plays it professionally with a touch of "over the top" acting (but not too much). The great John Malkovich is a spark of energy in this film as Ava's mentor. Mr. Malkovich, as is his want to do, eats the scenery in every scene that he is in. Under normal circumstances, this would annoying, but in this film, it is welcome. Ioan Gruffudd and Joan Chen show up (briefly) as adversaries of Ava and all of these components makes the "assassin side" of this film work well enough.
The "family side' of this film just doesn't work - except for one scene.
Common is just plain bad in the underwritten role of Ava's former lover who is now married to her sister. Jess Wexler is forgettable as Ava's sister (I even had to look her up on IMDB to remind me of who played this role) and Geena Davis - as Ava's estranged mother - looks like she is just there because she owed someone a favor.
Except for one scene.
And that's the interesting thing about this film. Right in the middle of this very generic, very ordinary film is a "come to Jesus" meeting between Ava (Chastain) and her mother (Davis). This scene was "Oscar worthy" with 2 very good actresses going back and forth with each other (with Davis dominating the scene). I gotta think that this scene was the only one Davis read when she agreed to do this film and was pouting during her other, generic scenes.
Director Tate Taylor (who took over when the original Director was bounced when past sexual indiscretions were unearthed) and writer Matthew Newton bring nothing new to the genre. It is all very...generic. The action scenes are professionally done, but generic. The situations are contrived and...generic. The acting is...scenery chewing generic. The ending is predictably generic.
All-in-all an "entertaining enough" generic action flick - except for that one scene (and maybe Malkovich's performance), they make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10 - it really is a "5", but will add a point for Malkovich and another point for the mother daughter scene). - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)