Geopolitics and Development
Book
The focus of the book is both historical and contemporary, exploring the geopolitical enframing and...
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Jigsaw (2017) in Movies
May 1, 2021
Jigsaw runs to almost the same formula as the previous films , there is a game in progress and the police have to stop it but as well as the game there is still enough of a story to make the film interesting. The biggest difference is that there isn't really the back story in the same way the other films had mainly because, with the exception of John Kramer (the original Jigsaw), we have all new characters. Instead Jigsaw focuses on finding out who the new Jigsaw is or even if it is a new Jigsaw or if John has some how come back from the dead. This is where the film is cleaver, it gives us a number of possible suspects and even makes it seem it may be John.
Jigsaw doesn't seem to be as gory as the previous films, yes you still have people in a game and yes at least some of them loose but there are no intestines littering the ground or close ups on people getting cut in half. Don't get me wrong there is still gore, closeups of the dead bodies and people loosing limbs but it doesn't quite have the same feel to it.
The story aspect to the film is good , as I said, it does leave you guessing to who the killer is although, if you pay attention there are clues. The film also plays with time a bit and, as in the other films, this is used to throw the viewer off track.
Jigsaw is a good entry in to the Saw franchise, as it has a ten year gap from Saw 7 it doesn't get bogged down with the original charters and doesn't get (too) bogged down with the past timeline which was getting a bit muddled (in my opinion) but it does manage to pull from what has gone before and use it further the story.
And that's it, the end of the Saw franchise. OK not quite, at the time of writing 'Spiral, Chapters from the book of Saw' is due out at the cinema (Corona willing) in a couple of weeks and it looks to bigger and better however I probably won't get to see it for a while so, for now, it's time to move onto something new.
Immunology
Education and Magazines & Newspapers
App
A leading immunology journal is now available on your iPad and iPhone. Fresh from the newsstand,...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The film then shifts into setup mode and the next hour or so is very light on action and instead focuses on Eggsy and Merlin (Mark Strong), dealing with a devastating attack on the Kingsman from a drug dealer called Poppy (Julianne Moore), who runs her empire with a ruthless and manic style from a 50s themed lair complete with robotic guards and a retro diner and theater.
Poppy runs an organization called The Golden Circle and she has unleashed a devastating plague on the world in an attempt to force the U.S. President to legalize all drugs which would allow her unlimited power and money to further her global agenda.
With their ranks depleted, Eggsy and Merlin head to the states to enlist the help if their U.S. counterparts, the Statesman who while at first reluctant, soon accept the two into their confidence and plan a mission to end the threat Poppy presents once and for all.
Of course complications arise for Eggsy such as his girlfriend and her parents as well as the revelation that Harry (Colin Firth) is alive but suffering amnesia and thus having no memory of his past life and skills in the service of the Kingsman.
One would think that with this setup and cast including the arrivals of Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, and Halle Berry, the film would be a slam dunk to surpass the original. Sadly this is not the case. Writer/Director Matthew Vaughn has opted for a film that has a very large gap of it related to setup and exposition. The film opens and concludes with a nice action sequence, but there is really not much in between to get the adrenaline rush going. The original film had the fantastic church sequence that became one of the most talked about moments of the film and sadly the sequel offers nothing nearly as memorable.
The other issue is that the villain is not nearly as memorable nor interesting as Samuel L. Jackson was to say nothing of his sword footed henchman from the original.
There are some amusing moments in the film but It seems that the new cast was not used to their full potential and that the large gaps of the film that lacked any action was a real setback especially with how well the film opened.
In the end the film is an enjoyable but flawed effort that fails to live up to the original but does manage to offer some decent entertainment for those who set realistic expectations.
http://sknr.net/2017/09/20/kingsman-golden-circle/
International Forum of Allergy & Rhinology
Education and Magazines & Newspapers
App
A leading otorhinolaryngology journal is now available on your iPad and iPhone. Fresh from the...
Allergy App
Education and Magazines & Newspapers
App
A leading allergy journal is now available on your iPad and iPhone. Fresh from the Newsstand, the...
Justin Taylor (59 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Oct 29, 2018
Too be honest I wasn't crazy about a Jumanji sequel especially after the late great Robin Williams passed away. But they did some things good and some things not so good so I'll start with the good first
1. It does something fresh with the original so in case you haven't seen it spoiler warning the board game we all know and love turned into a video game which is something I was kinda expecting but I wasn't surprised and it was nice seeing it getting updated for a new generation
2. The characters in the Jumanji world are hilariously entertaining with props particularly to Karen Gillan and Jack Black..they bring it in this movie and they had me laughing my butt off. Not totally saying that the Rock and Kevin Hart weren't funny either but they all are great
3 the action sequences are awesomely executed and exciting as it should be. Nothing more to say.
Now for the bad
1. Elephant in the room, the plot, ok so getting stuck in a video game is something that's been done to death but they do something creative with it but at the end of the day it's the exact same plot of the first movie.
2. The villains pretty much meh, he's your standard I'm gonna take what I want and no one can stop me type villain and yes in case your wondering his last name is van pelt.
3. Speaking of homages to the first movie don't expect too much outside of a couple of references including a name drop of Williams character from the original movie it has nothing to do with the first movie so it's like a standalone sequel and a soft reboot which means the events of the original still exist but they're pretty much making some retcons.
Overall I didn't hate this movie, I laughed at anything but I think if u take ur nostalgia glasses off and watch it with a new point of view youll enjoy it also this movie did something right because its getting a sequel next year
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)