Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Summer movies often hype themselves as spectacular events not to be missed and their ad campaigns use words like “epic”, “spectacle”, and “smash” as ways to build the hype to increase advanced box office sales.
The summer 2018 film season kicks off in a big way with “Avengers: Infinity War” and it is the rare summer film that exceeds is lofty expectations and delivers a crowning achievement for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
When Thanos (Josh Brolin), embarks on a deadly campaign to find and possess the Infinity Stones, he leaves a path of death and destruction in his path. When his pursuit leading him to Earth, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who enlist a reluctant Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), to the cause just as the minions of Thanos arrive.
With The Avengers fractured and scattered following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” the teams find themselves dealing with the threat in various groups as fate steps in to divide many key members of the team. This allows for a great entry by the Guardians of the Galaxy and allows the film to take a very enjoyable path. Essentially the movie weaves separate storylines into one cohesive and very satisfying epic. You have a story with the Guardians as well as one with many of the key Avengers, as well as others with characters old and new. As such it is like a Guardians, Avengers, and Marvel film all rolled into one and each one supports the other very well yet has the charm and identity you would expect. While the tone is very dark as you would expect with literally half of the known universe facing destruction, there is also some solid humor in the film that never once undermines the story or pacing.
Naturally the effects are stunning as you would expect as Marvel has put a significant amount of money into the film and it shows in every eye-popping action sequence.
What really impressed me the most was that the Russo Brothers never let the FX of the film overshadow the characters and with a very large cast, it was nice to see everyone got their moment and you did not see members of the cast trying to one up each other.
There are some real surprise moments along the way and the action is easily the best of any Marvel film to date. Many fans had expressed disappointment with “Avengers: Age of Ultron” for me this film is significantly better than the prior film and is everything that a Marvel fan would want in a film.
I was also surprised by how well Thanos was portrayed as while you hopefully will not agree with his deductions and methods; you could actually understand his motivations and it help him transcend from the usual megalomaniacs which are so common in films of his type. I am really looking forward to seeing what comes next and make sure you stay through the credits for a bonus scene.
Believe the hype, “Avengers: Infinity War” is an epic not to be missed and is an example of what a summer event film should be.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/24/avengers-infinity-war/
The summer 2018 film season kicks off in a big way with “Avengers: Infinity War” and it is the rare summer film that exceeds is lofty expectations and delivers a crowning achievement for the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
When Thanos (Josh Brolin), embarks on a deadly campaign to find and possess the Infinity Stones, he leaves a path of death and destruction in his path. When his pursuit leading him to Earth, Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), and Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch), who enlist a reluctant Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), to the cause just as the minions of Thanos arrive.
With The Avengers fractured and scattered following the events of “Captain America: Civil War” the teams find themselves dealing with the threat in various groups as fate steps in to divide many key members of the team. This allows for a great entry by the Guardians of the Galaxy and allows the film to take a very enjoyable path. Essentially the movie weaves separate storylines into one cohesive and very satisfying epic. You have a story with the Guardians as well as one with many of the key Avengers, as well as others with characters old and new. As such it is like a Guardians, Avengers, and Marvel film all rolled into one and each one supports the other very well yet has the charm and identity you would expect. While the tone is very dark as you would expect with literally half of the known universe facing destruction, there is also some solid humor in the film that never once undermines the story or pacing.
Naturally the effects are stunning as you would expect as Marvel has put a significant amount of money into the film and it shows in every eye-popping action sequence.
What really impressed me the most was that the Russo Brothers never let the FX of the film overshadow the characters and with a very large cast, it was nice to see everyone got their moment and you did not see members of the cast trying to one up each other.
There are some real surprise moments along the way and the action is easily the best of any Marvel film to date. Many fans had expressed disappointment with “Avengers: Age of Ultron” for me this film is significantly better than the prior film and is everything that a Marvel fan would want in a film.
I was also surprised by how well Thanos was portrayed as while you hopefully will not agree with his deductions and methods; you could actually understand his motivations and it help him transcend from the usual megalomaniacs which are so common in films of his type. I am really looking forward to seeing what comes next and make sure you stay through the credits for a bonus scene.
Believe the hype, “Avengers: Infinity War” is an epic not to be missed and is an example of what a summer event film should be.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/24/avengers-infinity-war/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Rampage (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
I have long written about the troubled history of bringing video game movies to the screen. For every success such as “Resident Evil” there are failures such as “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, “DOOM”, and countless others. In recent years studios have taken more control of films based on their titles and we have seen some better success at least from a financial point. I was on set and very briefly in “Postal” and “Far Cry” and between scenes it was explained to me that with many video game films, you can use names and a basic premise from the game, but visuals, scenarios and such are usually forbidden as they cannot follow past stories or impede on any possible new projects. What is left is usually something with the name of the game and a very loose association.
“Tomb Raider” and “Assassin’s Creed” recently had a solid box office and while “Warcraft” fizzled domestically it did well overseas but not enough to trigger a sequel but showed an upward trend of star power and bigger budgets for game related films.
All of which brings us to “Rampage”; which is based on a classic arcade game which spawned version on multiple gaming platforms and sequels over the years.
The movie stars Dwayne Johnson as Davis Okoye; a former military operative who joined an anti-poaching task force and now resides in San Diego caring for Primates. His associates note that he has a better relationship with the animals in his care than he does the people around him and Davis is more than fine with this.
His favorite animal is an Albino Gorilla named George and Davis has even managed to teach him and other members of the group to speak to him via sign language.
All seems well until debris from a satellite crashes into George’s enclosure one night as well as various locales around the country.
George begins to grow at an alarming rate and shows increased aggression which is troubling to Davis and draws the attention of a genetics company who are involved in a rogue genetics experiment and a disgraced scientist named Dr. Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris) who strive to help George and get control of the situation. Naturally the people behind the experiment are not going to let this happen and involve Government Agent Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), to transport them all to a secure locale.
Naturally things do not go as planned and with multiple creatures now on the loose and heading to Chicago, and the military powerless to stop the carnage, it is up to Davis to save George and save the day.
The film uses some lavish visuals to depict the creatures and the action scenes are very entertaining. For a game with a very basic premise, it was nice to see the attempt made to flesh out the backstory and characters and not make the film just an extended FX reel.
There are some scenes and lines that would not be appropriate for younger viewers as a couple at our screener seemed to have some issues with the intensity at times. That being said, “Rampage” delivers an over the top, campy, and fully entertaining mix of video games and classic monster movies. The strong cast and great effects make for an enjoyable action film as long as you accept things with a wink and a smile. I hope this is a success as I would love to see a future film in the series and Johnson, Morgan, and Harris were a very winning combination.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/11/rampage/
“Tomb Raider” and “Assassin’s Creed” recently had a solid box office and while “Warcraft” fizzled domestically it did well overseas but not enough to trigger a sequel but showed an upward trend of star power and bigger budgets for game related films.
All of which brings us to “Rampage”; which is based on a classic arcade game which spawned version on multiple gaming platforms and sequels over the years.
The movie stars Dwayne Johnson as Davis Okoye; a former military operative who joined an anti-poaching task force and now resides in San Diego caring for Primates. His associates note that he has a better relationship with the animals in his care than he does the people around him and Davis is more than fine with this.
His favorite animal is an Albino Gorilla named George and Davis has even managed to teach him and other members of the group to speak to him via sign language.
All seems well until debris from a satellite crashes into George’s enclosure one night as well as various locales around the country.
George begins to grow at an alarming rate and shows increased aggression which is troubling to Davis and draws the attention of a genetics company who are involved in a rogue genetics experiment and a disgraced scientist named Dr. Kate Caldwell (Naomie Harris) who strive to help George and get control of the situation. Naturally the people behind the experiment are not going to let this happen and involve Government Agent Russell (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), to transport them all to a secure locale.
Naturally things do not go as planned and with multiple creatures now on the loose and heading to Chicago, and the military powerless to stop the carnage, it is up to Davis to save George and save the day.
The film uses some lavish visuals to depict the creatures and the action scenes are very entertaining. For a game with a very basic premise, it was nice to see the attempt made to flesh out the backstory and characters and not make the film just an extended FX reel.
There are some scenes and lines that would not be appropriate for younger viewers as a couple at our screener seemed to have some issues with the intensity at times. That being said, “Rampage” delivers an over the top, campy, and fully entertaining mix of video games and classic monster movies. The strong cast and great effects make for an enjoyable action film as long as you accept things with a wink and a smile. I hope this is a success as I would love to see a future film in the series and Johnson, Morgan, and Harris were a very winning combination.
http://sknr.net/2018/04/11/rampage/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Making movies based on video games has had a dubious history when it comes to cinematic success. While “Resident Evil” and “Warcraft” found decent success, films such as “DOOM”, “Super Mario Bros”, “Wing Commander”, and others crashed and burned hard at the box office. The reason for this was explained to me once by Director Uwe Boll who has crafted numerous titles based on video games and has suffered harsh feedback from fans and critics as a result.
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Boll explained to me that many times you are only getting the name from a game and some of the characters but there is often a long list of things you cannot do from the game developers which often includes visuals, stories, and content that was used in the games as well as areas that might be used for potential sequels down the road.
So with such restrictive rules, one would ask yourself why anyone would want to take the risk. The answer like all things in Hollywood is money as game based movies already have a built in audience, and all one needs to do is successfully tap into that audience successfully and you can have a successful film and perhaps a series.
With this in mind, developer Ubisoft is looking to bring many of their games to the screen and unlike most game companies, they are taking a very hands-on approach to the process as they were active though all parts of the process from casting to the choice of Director and writers.
Their first effort is “Assassin’s Creed”, which is based on their very popular and successful series of games which combine historical settings with plenty of action and intriguing plots.
The film stars Michael Fassbender as Cal Lynch, who is about to be executed for murdering a criminal. Cal awakens to find that he has been given a new lease on life thanks to Sofia (Marion Cotillard) and her father Rikkin (Jeremy Irons), who run an institute dedicated to the elimination of violence.
Of course there is more to the story than Cal is told and he is strapped into a machine that allows him to experience the memories of one of his ancestors in Spain who was a skilled assassin. Cal ventures back in time again and again, as he attempts to locate a mysterious object that was last known to be in the possession of his ancestor, unaware that there is a much larger game underway with the fate of humanity in the balance.
The film makes a good effort as there are some nice visuals and action sequences, but unfortunately they are too few and far between and the film suffers from a stale narrative and dull characters which is surprising considering the talent that is attached to it.
This is not to say that it is a bad film, but rather it is not very memorable and is something that once seen is likely easy to forget and does not inspire enthusiasm for more which puts a crimp in the plans for the sequels. Time will tell how the film does, but it looks sadly like yet another effort that comes up lacking.
http://sknr.net/2016/12/20/assassins-creed/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Rio 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Three years ago, my wife and I moved down to Arizona to open the second office of Skewed and Reviewed. I remember clearly getting into town on a Tuesday evening and the following Saturday morning we had our first assignment in AZ, screening the movie “RIO”.
As we marked the anniversary of our arrival in the Valley of the Sun, it was ironic that “Rio 2” was flying into theaters at the same time and once again, we had a Saturday morning screening for the film albeit at different theaters.
The sequel picks up shortly after the events of the first film with Blu (Jess Eisenberg), and Jewel (Anne Hathaway), raising their children in a sanctuary in Rio. Their musical and colorful friends are all around them and are preparing for the upcoming carnival and the festivities that go along with it.
Blu learns that his former owner Linda (Leslie Mann), and her husband may have discovered others of Blu’s species in the deep jungle, which in turn leads Jewel to suggest a family vacation into the wild to help out.
For a city bird like Blu, venturing into the wild requires a fanny pack with items ranging from a G.P.S. to a utility knife and other modern items much to the chagrin of those around him.
The distant journey seems to be going well, until Blu crosses paths with Nigel (Jemaine Clement), who is still seething over his last encounter with Blu and schemes his revenge.
Blu and his family stumble upon a whole flock of their species and they eagerly embrace Jewel as she has returned home. Blu despite his best efforts does not fit in and struggles to gain acceptance from Jewel’s dad who is also the leader of the flock.
As if this was not enough problems for one bird to handle, an illegal organization is cutting down the forest which threatens the flock as well as Lind and her husband.
What follows is a madcap mix of comedy, music, and adventure as the film mixes very good lessons about environmental awareness and acceptance without ever being preachy.
The animation and 3D is solid and the supporting cast which included Bruno Mars, George Lopez, Jaime Foxx, Will I Am, Tracy Morgan, Andy Garcia and many others does a solid job.
The film took a while to get going and while the final 30 minutes pays off, the biggest trouble was staying with the film during the slower moments.
While it was very well presented and produced it does make me appreciate just how dialed in Disney is with their films as no matter how much they tried, none of the musical numbers in “Rio 2” were memorable and I stuggled to remember a single song shortly after the screener.
Since Disney is the leader in the industry for animated films and have been so for over 75 years, it would be unfair to expect the company behind the “Ice Age” series to meet the same standards.
While it may not be a timeless classic, “Rio 2” still has enough charm and enjoyment to make it an enjoyable film for younger viewers and fans of the first film, just as long as you temper your expectations.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/rio-2/
As we marked the anniversary of our arrival in the Valley of the Sun, it was ironic that “Rio 2” was flying into theaters at the same time and once again, we had a Saturday morning screening for the film albeit at different theaters.
The sequel picks up shortly after the events of the first film with Blu (Jess Eisenberg), and Jewel (Anne Hathaway), raising their children in a sanctuary in Rio. Their musical and colorful friends are all around them and are preparing for the upcoming carnival and the festivities that go along with it.
Blu learns that his former owner Linda (Leslie Mann), and her husband may have discovered others of Blu’s species in the deep jungle, which in turn leads Jewel to suggest a family vacation into the wild to help out.
For a city bird like Blu, venturing into the wild requires a fanny pack with items ranging from a G.P.S. to a utility knife and other modern items much to the chagrin of those around him.
The distant journey seems to be going well, until Blu crosses paths with Nigel (Jemaine Clement), who is still seething over his last encounter with Blu and schemes his revenge.
Blu and his family stumble upon a whole flock of their species and they eagerly embrace Jewel as she has returned home. Blu despite his best efforts does not fit in and struggles to gain acceptance from Jewel’s dad who is also the leader of the flock.
As if this was not enough problems for one bird to handle, an illegal organization is cutting down the forest which threatens the flock as well as Lind and her husband.
What follows is a madcap mix of comedy, music, and adventure as the film mixes very good lessons about environmental awareness and acceptance without ever being preachy.
The animation and 3D is solid and the supporting cast which included Bruno Mars, George Lopez, Jaime Foxx, Will I Am, Tracy Morgan, Andy Garcia and many others does a solid job.
The film took a while to get going and while the final 30 minutes pays off, the biggest trouble was staying with the film during the slower moments.
While it was very well presented and produced it does make me appreciate just how dialed in Disney is with their films as no matter how much they tried, none of the musical numbers in “Rio 2” were memorable and I stuggled to remember a single song shortly after the screener.
Since Disney is the leader in the industry for animated films and have been so for over 75 years, it would be unfair to expect the company behind the “Ice Age” series to meet the same standards.
While it may not be a timeless classic, “Rio 2” still has enough charm and enjoyment to make it an enjoyable film for younger viewers and fans of the first film, just as long as you temper your expectations.
http://sknr.net/2014/04/11/rio-2/
Darren (1599 KP) rated 1408 (2007) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: With the story of a sceptic investigating paranormal events but then ends up stuck in these paranormal events he so very much doesn’t believe in, is a very clichéd story. This has most of this and adds in that he is a writer with a dark past involving loss you know where this is going. Mixing it all together we get the idea of redemption for the mistakes we may have done in life. One weak point of this film is that there are two endings that paint a very different picture of the events that happen in the film, I personally prefer the Director’s Cut as I find it has more answer than the Theatrical Cut. (8/10)
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Actor Reviews
John Cusack: Mike Enslin after suffering a personal loss Mike travels around writing about so called haunted hotel and location, bringing out a string of top 10 books looking at his experiences or lack thereof. Mike gets a postcard and against all the advice of the hotel manager he enters the room 1408, were he really gets put to the test. Mike starts off being distant from people, be it fans or his general style of conversation, but soon after the events start happening he changes too quickly for what his character has been through. John does a good job with the role as most of the film is solely around him. (8/10)
cusack
Samuel L. Jackson: Gerald Olin the manager of the Dolphin hotel trying to protect Mike from entering the room with all kinds of bribes, he tells the full history of the room but unfortunately lets him stay in the room. Good supporting performance from Jackson rarely seen, he is the dominant persona you would expect to see. (8/10)
sam
Director Review: Mikael Hafstrom – Creates some very good scares and keeps you guessing on what is going on, add in what I think is the better ending you get a very good piece of direction. (8/10)
Horror: Has some solid scares and some you really don’t see coming along with some nicely built up ones. (9/10)
Mystery: You are constantly wondering what is going on, but a lot is explained at the end. (9/10)
Thriller: Keeps you at the edge of your seat just wait to know what happens next. (9/10)
Settings: The hotel room feels very ordinary but once things starting to happen it turns into a nightmare, working very well for the genre. (9/10)
Special Effects: Strong special effects used throughout. (9/10)
Suggestion: If you are a fan of horror you will enjoy this, if you are a fan of Stephen King you will enjoy this otherwise this one isn’t really for you. (Horror Fans Watch)
Best Part: The vents scene.
Worst Part: The two different endings can confuse when talking about this film with others.
Scariest Scene: Vent scene.
Believability: I give this a one because there are people like Mike you investigate the paranormal, but what happens isn’t believable. (1/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $131,998,242
Budget: $25 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 34 Minutes
Tagline: Based on the terrifying story by Stephen King
Overall: Good Atmospheric Horror
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/06/28/1408-2007/
Darren (1599 KP) rated All Is Lost (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: All is Lost starts 1700 Nautical Miles from The Sumatra Straits on the 13th July as Our Man (Redford) believes that all is lost. The film starts out with a bang when sleeping lone sailor is awoken be cargo shipping container floating in the ocean smashing into the side of his ship leaving a massive hole in the side. The breach in the ship leaves our man with no connections for help even if his boat isn’t going down yet. Staying calm our man fixes the hole before fixing the radio knowing he can survive for a time but just how long is the question, mother nature decides to test our man by throwing storms at him but his years of experience are keeping him a float.
All is Lost is such a very simple story of one man trying survive against mother nature. We have to say this is a courage story that shows our hero never panic and use all the tricks he can to make sure he survives as long as he can always hoping for help. We are left guessing whether he will survive or not as we learn tricks that could help us one day, but in the end I do think this is an incredible story but is very slow, I can easily see the casual film fan giving up on this one. There is pretty much no dialogue in the film because our character has no one to talk to or need to explain who he is. I can honestly I would rather watch the fantasy Life of Pi over this because of the extra elements involved. (8/10)
Actor Review
Robert Redford: Our Man is our lone character in the whole film, we learn little about him over than he likes to boat, we know he keeps calm during the panic and knows how to survive and we also get to see his determination to survive. Robert gives a great performance without having to say too much that his action bring us in. (9/10)man
Director Review: J.C. Chandor – J.C gives us a very good drama about surviving that will get the praise from the critics but might not get enough attention from the casual fans. (8/10)
Action: All is Lost has the action scenes when our hero has t take on mother nature, each scene is heart stopping and realistic. (9/10)
Drama: All is Lost brings us a brilliant story about surviving against the odds. (9/10)
Settings: All is Lost can’t be faulted one bit for the settings because the whole film is set in the middle of the ocean giving our hero little to no chance of surviving. (10/10)
Suggestion: All is Lost is one to watch even if it does come off slow in places. (Watch)
Best Part: Redford is brilliant.
Worst Part: Slow in places.
Action Scene Of The Film: Storm turning the boat upside and back up again.
Believability: Events like this happen a lot and while this story is fictional it takes ideas from other stories. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Life of Pi
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Achievement in Sound Editing.
Box Office: $6.25 Million
Budget: $9 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Never Give Up
Overall: All is Lost is a very good story about survival that keeps everything looking very realistic.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/30/all-is-lost-2013/
All is Lost is such a very simple story of one man trying survive against mother nature. We have to say this is a courage story that shows our hero never panic and use all the tricks he can to make sure he survives as long as he can always hoping for help. We are left guessing whether he will survive or not as we learn tricks that could help us one day, but in the end I do think this is an incredible story but is very slow, I can easily see the casual film fan giving up on this one. There is pretty much no dialogue in the film because our character has no one to talk to or need to explain who he is. I can honestly I would rather watch the fantasy Life of Pi over this because of the extra elements involved. (8/10)
Actor Review
Robert Redford: Our Man is our lone character in the whole film, we learn little about him over than he likes to boat, we know he keeps calm during the panic and knows how to survive and we also get to see his determination to survive. Robert gives a great performance without having to say too much that his action bring us in. (9/10)man
Director Review: J.C. Chandor – J.C gives us a very good drama about surviving that will get the praise from the critics but might not get enough attention from the casual fans. (8/10)
Action: All is Lost has the action scenes when our hero has t take on mother nature, each scene is heart stopping and realistic. (9/10)
Drama: All is Lost brings us a brilliant story about surviving against the odds. (9/10)
Settings: All is Lost can’t be faulted one bit for the settings because the whole film is set in the middle of the ocean giving our hero little to no chance of surviving. (10/10)
Suggestion: All is Lost is one to watch even if it does come off slow in places. (Watch)
Best Part: Redford is brilliant.
Worst Part: Slow in places.
Action Scene Of The Film: Storm turning the boat upside and back up again.
Believability: Events like this happen a lot and while this story is fictional it takes ideas from other stories. (8/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Life of Pi
Oscar Chances: Nominated for Best Achievement in Sound Editing.
Box Office: $6.25 Million
Budget: $9 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 46 Minutes
Tagline: Never Give Up
Overall: All is Lost is a very good story about survival that keeps everything looking very realistic.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/30/all-is-lost-2013/
Darren (1599 KP) rated American Hustle (2013) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: When you have a con artist film you need to be anticipating some twist in the heroes favour. This has that and you are left to figure out how he will pull it off, what happens between is very familiar with the differences between the hero and the guy he has to complete the job for. What is not familiar is that the hero starts to support the guys he is meant to be conning, mix in a love triangle and you do get something more original. The film never tries to take its self too serious which is what makes it good, but in the end you won’t be left thinking I have to watch this again. (7/10)
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Actor Reviews
Christian Bale: Irving the con-man who has to help his partner get off the crimes, keep his wife happy and work with someone he clearly doesn’t like. Good performance from Bale who takes a big step away from many roles he would be more know for. (9/10)
bale
Bradley Cooper: Richie the FBI agent who wants to take as many people down as he could, stepping on whoever tries to stop him. Good cocky performance showing he doesn’t always have to play the good guy. (8/10)
cooper
Amy Adams: Sydney the partner in crime of Irving who gets caught, but will work with her partner to take down enough people to get off the crime, smart, sexy she has to put up with being Irving’s piece on the side due to his marriage commitments. Good performance as always from Adams showing she can fit in any role given to her. (9/10)
adams
Jeremy Renner: Mayor Carmine the man they are all trying to catch, along with all his fellow big names who take money under the table. Good performance from Jeremy showing he can step into less serious roles after a string of action based films. (8/10)
renner
Jennifer Lawrence: Rosalyn, Irving’s estranged wife, they both don’t like each other but stay together for her child, and she is clumsy and never follows instructions, the complete opposite of Irving. Good performance from Jennifer who shows she can fill smaller roles and still steal the scene.(8/10)
jenny
Director Review: David O. Russell – Good direction throughout showing how each character is currently feeling and letting us know how they think about what is going on. (8/10)
Crime: Good con artist themes throughout. (8/10)
Settings: Very good authentic settings for the time period. (9/10)
Suggestion: I think this is only one to try, I feel some people will not enjoy it due to its unoriginal con artist themes but they may enjoy the characters. (Try It)
Best Part: De Niro cameo
Worst Part: It is kind of slow.
Believability: The corruption involved is real, but the characters are all made up. (5/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: Nominated for TEN Oscars, but didn’t win any.
Box Office: $251,171,807
Budget: $40 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 18 Minutes
Tagline: Everyone Hustles To Survive
Overall: Con Artist time machine to the 70s
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/04/28/american-hustle-2013/
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Jan 8, 2019
Hugh Jackman (1 more)
J.K. Simmons
Enjoyable, great performances from all
I don't really follow, or know very much about American politics. Trying to cope with whatever Brexit nonsense is happening here in the UK on a daily basis is more than enough for me, so aside from face palming at whatever rubbish Donald Trump is currently spewing on Twitter, I'm fairly oblivious to it all. Back in 1988, I would have more likely been playing Super Mario World, than taking interest in former Colorado senator Gary Hart, who became the front runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. So why then would I be interested in watching a movie about him and the scandal he became involved in so close to achieving his dream of presidency? Well, when the movie stars versatile man of the moment Hugh Jackman as Gary Hart, along with another two of my favourite actors (Vera Farmiga and J.K. Simmons), then I'm more than happy to give it a shot!
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
The movie opens with Hart currently riding high, with only three weeks to go until the nomination. He's a very charismatic man, intelligent, and clearly striking a chord with the voters. His path to the White House seems clear and certain. But, as the opening on-screen titles remind us, a lot can happen in three weeks...
Those three weeks, for the most part, run pretty smoothly, giving us a chance to get to know Hart and the vast number of supporting characters as the campaign progresses through its final stages. J.K. Simmons is campaign manager Bill Dixon, brilliant and often hilarious in every scene he's in. Vera Farmiga plays Harts wife Lee, slightly underused in the role of supportive wife placed in a difficult position. Elsewhere, there are plenty of strong supporting characters, both throughout the campaign team and within the news teams that are tasked with following Hart around the country. One of those reporters eventually gets wind of a potential story, although he initially doesn't believe the young nervous girl phoning his office one night, telling him about her friend who is due to go and meet with Hart at the weekend. A last minute change in Harts schedule for the weekend leads the reporter to suspect there may be some truth to the phone call and he follows up on the lead, staking out Harts townhouse in a bid to get some dirt on him.
When the dirt does start to come out, Hart attempts to brush it aside. We've already seen what a private man he is, baffled as to why anyone would want to see him posing for photos with his family in People magazine. He believes that his policies and the politician that he is are all that matters, and that the public aren't interested in his private life at all, so all of this will just blow over. His staff rally round to try and contain the story and work out what to do with the woman involved in the scandal, while Harts wife and daughter deal with the fallout back home. All the while, the reporters and TV are having a field day. Every part of the story is interesting, and the characters involved are all superb. What always helps a movie like this though is when it is based on true events and what helps it even more is the fantastic cast, who all do a brilliant job at making this a very enjoyable movie.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Hancock (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Throughout the annals of cinema, the big screen has been home to some of the most larger-than-life heroes ever to spring from the pages of comic books. Recent adaptations of Spider-Man, Batman, and Superman, all went on to box office gold and with several more character adaptations in the works, there seems to be no end to the public’s desire to see tales based on costumed heroes with amazing powers.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
In one of the more original twists on the hero genre, Will Smith stars as Hancock, a surly lush, who is more concerned about his next drink than he is about saving the day. Despite being blessed with amazing strength, invulnerability, and the ability to fly, Hancock is looked upon with disdain by most of the people of Los Angeles because his attitude is second only to the amazing amount of damage he causes in bringing local hoodlums to justice.
Shortly after causing nine million dollars in damage after his latest crime fighting effort, the mayor of L.A. places a warrant out for Hancock, having decided it was time for Hancock to be held accountable for the mayhem he has caused. At the same time, publicist Ray Embrey (Jason Bateman) is returning home after failing in his pitch to get a major pharmaceutical company to donate their new wonder drug in an effort to make the world better.
When danger arises during a traffic jam, Ray is saved by Hancock in the nick of time and is grateful for the efforts of the hero. Unfortunately a group of bystanders are convinced that Hancock could have saved Ray without making wreaking such havoc. In the midst of some heated verbal exchanges, Ray steps up for Hancock and expresses his gratitude to the hero and invites him home for dinner with his son and wife Mary (Charlize Theron). Undaunted by the gruff mannerisms of Hancock, Ray eventually convinces Hancock to let Ray represent him and sets out on a plan to remake Hancock’s image more positive and civic-friendly.
While this scenario presents several comedic moments, the film eventually changes tact, and becomes much darker in tone, and mired in a subplot of fate and mysticism that honestly seems greatly out-of-place with the tone established in the first three quarters of the film.
While it is notable that the filmmakers decided to try something different, the final result is a muddled effort that greatly undermines the laughs and momentum that were established earlier in the film. Smith does a great job but when he is not unleashing his sardonic quips, he seems to be disinterested and going through the motion for much of the last half of the film. Bateman does the best he can with a stock part and Theron seems woefully underused in a role that, while promising, really is not worthy of an actress of her skills.
Director Peter Berg does a solid job with the action and FX of the film, and clearly shows he has a knack for humor. Unfortunately the script by “X-Files” alum Vince Gilligan and Vince Ngo fails to live up to the potential of the premise and in the end leaves “Hancock” grounded.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Ringu 2 (Ring 2) (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
When the American version of the classic Japanese horror film “Ringu” became a smash hit at the box office it did not take a rocket scientist to realize that “The Ring” would soon generate a sequel.
The film had all of the elements for success, a creepy supernatural tale, a twisting and complex storyline that kept viewers guessing, and plenty of frights that made even the most jaded horror viewers squirm.
Sadly, the newest film in the series The Ring Two plays as an uninspired effort that seems to exist simply to cash in on the first film with little to no effort to add to the series.
The film opens with Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), having left Seattle with her son Aidan (David Dorfman), in an effort to put the horrors of their experiences in the first film behind them. Settling into a bland but comfortable existence in a coastal town named Astoria.
Rachel spends her days working for the tiny local paper though it is obvious that she is struggling to cope with the step down from working for a major metropolitan paper. When an unexplained homicide occurs, the local media crew is excited as for once, they will have a real story to cover. That is all of the staff aside t for Rachel who finds details of the murder disturbingly familiar to what she has witnessed in the past.
A study of the crime scene discovers a copy of the tape from the first film, that when viewed causes the viewer to die in seven days. Rachel is convinced that destroying the tape will end the terror once and for all, but despite her best efforts bizarre events continue.
The fact that her son has become ill and is acting odd, (even for him), is cause for Rachel to try to determine what is causing the changes. What is missing though is the energy and eeriness that drove the first film. Instead the audience gets paper thin characters, a very slow and plodding story, and very few frights.
The film has a couple of good scares but they are very few and far apart. The film also has gigantic lapses in logic as characters act as if their brains are in a deep freeze. During one moment, Rachel is told by her son to drive, instead she decides to stop and chat. Something goes awry, and Rachel is again told to drive, yet again she decides to stop and chat oblivious to what has happened.
All of this could be forgiven but not the very tired fallbacks that the film uses instead of offering anything fresh. What made the first film so good was the way it kept surprising the audience by coming up with new twists and turns as well as clever misdirection that kept viewers on edge and guessing what was to come next.
This time out, the cleverness and originality of the first film seems to have been sucked out of the film in favor of a few gimmick effects and a paper thin plot that seems to have been culled from other films. Add this all up, and sadly The Ring franchise has become an imitator rather than an innovator and this effort will leave fans in the cold.
The film had all of the elements for success, a creepy supernatural tale, a twisting and complex storyline that kept viewers guessing, and plenty of frights that made even the most jaded horror viewers squirm.
Sadly, the newest film in the series The Ring Two plays as an uninspired effort that seems to exist simply to cash in on the first film with little to no effort to add to the series.
The film opens with Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), having left Seattle with her son Aidan (David Dorfman), in an effort to put the horrors of their experiences in the first film behind them. Settling into a bland but comfortable existence in a coastal town named Astoria.
Rachel spends her days working for the tiny local paper though it is obvious that she is struggling to cope with the step down from working for a major metropolitan paper. When an unexplained homicide occurs, the local media crew is excited as for once, they will have a real story to cover. That is all of the staff aside t for Rachel who finds details of the murder disturbingly familiar to what she has witnessed in the past.
A study of the crime scene discovers a copy of the tape from the first film, that when viewed causes the viewer to die in seven days. Rachel is convinced that destroying the tape will end the terror once and for all, but despite her best efforts bizarre events continue.
The fact that her son has become ill and is acting odd, (even for him), is cause for Rachel to try to determine what is causing the changes. What is missing though is the energy and eeriness that drove the first film. Instead the audience gets paper thin characters, a very slow and plodding story, and very few frights.
The film has a couple of good scares but they are very few and far apart. The film also has gigantic lapses in logic as characters act as if their brains are in a deep freeze. During one moment, Rachel is told by her son to drive, instead she decides to stop and chat. Something goes awry, and Rachel is again told to drive, yet again she decides to stop and chat oblivious to what has happened.
All of this could be forgiven but not the very tired fallbacks that the film uses instead of offering anything fresh. What made the first film so good was the way it kept surprising the audience by coming up with new twists and turns as well as clever misdirection that kept viewers on edge and guessing what was to come next.
This time out, the cleverness and originality of the first film seems to have been sucked out of the film in favor of a few gimmick effects and a paper thin plot that seems to have been culled from other films. Add this all up, and sadly The Ring franchise has become an imitator rather than an innovator and this effort will leave fans in the cold.