Search
Search results
John Lennon recommended Complete Works in Books (curated)
Zac Posen recommended Plays, Prose Writings and Poems in Books (curated)
Awix (3310 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018
Third time's a charm
Wasn't it Oscar Wilde who said that to cast one actor as Spider-Man is a sound artistic choice, but to cast three in only fifteen years is possibly taking the mickey? Hey ho. Marvel Studios bring all their usual skill to this latest addition to the series, and the result is as entertaining as you'd expect.
They do make quite a big deal out of the fact that Spider-Man is back in continuity with the Avengers (et al), much more so than happens in the other MCU films, but I suppose it's forgivable. The movie's two big innovations are to basically tell the story as a goofy 80s-style high school comedy, and to actually have a genuinely strong and memorable villain (Michael Keaton makes a real impression as another sort of birdman). Solid script; also very funny; doesn't quite supplant memories of the Sam Raimi-Tobey Maguire films, but stands comparison to them very well.
They do make quite a big deal out of the fact that Spider-Man is back in continuity with the Avengers (et al), much more so than happens in the other MCU films, but I suppose it's forgivable. The movie's two big innovations are to basically tell the story as a goofy 80s-style high school comedy, and to actually have a genuinely strong and memorable villain (Michael Keaton makes a real impression as another sort of birdman). Solid script; also very funny; doesn't quite supplant memories of the Sam Raimi-Tobey Maguire films, but stands comparison to them very well.
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Portrait of Mr W.H. in Books
May 14, 2017
. As a paradox to the realism and ethics of the period, decadent writers, artists, and poets challenged a society that strove for a standard in public discourse.
First published in 1889, Oscar Wilde’s The Portrait of Mr W.H., is a short story about the efforts of three characters trying to discover the identity of Shakespeare’s Mr W.H. ; the dedicatee of his many sonnets. Wilde’s novel is a prime example of decadent literature and aestheticism, which, as a result, challenges the Victorian ideals of moral decency and public rectitude. The author uses paradox in the novel to present a theory that contradicts the conservative critics of Shakespeare’s sonnets.
Wilde presents a subjective interpretation of Shakespeare’s sonnets that portrays homoerotic sexual desire as the force for creative inspiration. Foremost, through the character Cyril Graham, the author demonstrates that art is ‘an attempt to realise one’s own personality on some imaginative plane out of reach of the trammelling accidents and limitations of real life’, (Wilde, p.111).
Taking from a hypothesis in the previous century by Edmund Malone and Thomas Tyrwhitt, the character of Cyril forms a theory in which Mr W.H. is a young actor named Willie Hughes, employed by Shakespeare and who is the muse to which the sonnets are devoted. Cyril investigates each poem and pieces together a theory he believes to be true.
On the surface, Cyril’s theory derives from feeling and beauty rather than logic and instruction.
The withholding of facts in Shakespeare’s sonnets energises Cyril. He scours the poems to find a clue that harmonise with his own feelings. Cyril believes that Shakespeare influences his readers by guiding them to Willie Hughes.
Cyril, spurned by the moralistic interpretations of previous critics, becomes enthralled by Shakespeare’s muse.
Wilde presents a subjective interpretation of Shakespeare’s sonnets that portrays homoerotic sexual desire as the force for creative inspiration. Foremost, through the character Cyril Graham, the author demonstrates that art is ‘an attempt to realise one’s own personality on some imaginative plane out of reach of the trammelling accidents and limitations of real life’, (Wilde, p.111).
Taking from a hypothesis in the previous century by Edmund Malone and Thomas Tyrwhitt, the character of Cyril forms a theory in which Mr W.H. is a young actor named Willie Hughes, employed by Shakespeare and who is the muse to which the sonnets are devoted. Cyril investigates each poem and pieces together a theory he believes to be true.
On the surface, Cyril’s theory derives from feeling and beauty rather than logic and instruction.
The withholding of facts in Shakespeare’s sonnets energises Cyril. He scours the poems to find a clue that harmonise with his own feelings. Cyril believes that Shakespeare influences his readers by guiding them to Willie Hughes.
Cyril, spurned by the moralistic interpretations of previous critics, becomes enthralled by Shakespeare’s muse.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Callum John Hunter (0 KP) rated England Is Mine (2017) in Movies
Sep 20, 2017
Just watched the film England Is Mine based on Steven Patrick Morrissey before he formed The Smiths with Johnny Marr and I have to say it was a brilliant film I never truly knew a lot of the stuff that Morrissey went through in his younger life with his depression and how his friends did help him to shape his ability to perform I know that a lot of people dislike Morrissey and he has said some controversial things but I do sympathise with the whole depression side because I know what it is like to suffer from it, the film starts at a nice pace and gradually builds with some nice music the actor chosen to represent Morrissey was a really good choice he perfected Morrissey's tone the whole cast was pure perfection and I am truly glad that I watched it, it gave me more of an understanding to how Morrissey thinks and where a lot of the lyrics gained there inspiration from such as his love of Shakespeare and Oscar Wilde and how he used such stylings to mould his way of singing, so in short it was a truly great film and I enjoyed it immensely.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Carrie (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
If you’ve got a taste for terror…take Carrie to the Prom.”
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Chloe Grace Moretz plays Carrie, an extremely shy outcast who is bullied by her peers for being “strange” and “different”. Her mother Margaret White (Julian Moore) is an overprotective and a religious extremist who uses her strange beliefs in the form of abuse on her daughter Carrie. Like all teens, Carrie would very much like to be normal and fit in. Her mothers crazy religious beliefs keeps her from teaching Carrie the basics of becoming a woman in the hopes that she will be kept “pure”.
The schools gym teacher Mrs Desjardin (Judy Greer) takes a liking to Carrie and tries to keep her protected from popular mean girls, Chris Hargenson (Portia Doubleday) who is the “leader of the pack” and Sue Snell (Gabrielle Wilde). Sue soon regrets her actions towards Carrie and though Chris does not, Sue devises a plan to be able to make it up to Carrie. Sue asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to do her a favor by taking Carrie to the prom and showing her a magical night. When Carrie is pushed too far by her peers she unleashes telekinetic powers over all who have hurt her.
Most fans of horror know all too well about Carrie. This could be the fact that the film itself has been reimagined twice . The 1976 version won an Oscar Nomination for Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie. It was well deserved then and may be well deserved now for the young Chloe who has been making great strides in her acting career since the Amityvile horror. She does a great job at embodying the archetypal superhero kind of character. Julian Moore is perfect in the role of Carrie’s mom, adding more creepiness to the character. This adaption by director Kimberly Pierce (Stop Loss, Boys Don’t Cry) is kept closer to Mr. King’s novel. Pierce makes the audience fall in love with Carrie and wants to see her succeed in her power and in herself.
Though the movie stays closer to the novel it still doesn’t stray far from it’s two predecessors. Pierce’ is my preferred version as she uses more modern effects and we can now visually see Carrie’s powers come to life instead of just burrowing eyes hinting towards powers that are being used. This film is perfect for any horror fan and those that like a great vengeful story about a girl who wanted to just be normal.
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated More Holmes for the Holidays in Books
Mar 1, 2018
[a:Martin H. Greenberg|6436872|Martin H. Greenberg|http://www.goodreads.com/assets/nophoto/nophoto-M-50x66.jpg] and company have provided a fine collection of Sherlockian holiday stories that fit in quite well with the traditional set.
"The Christmas Gift" by Anne Perry is a nice little piece about a stolen Stradivarius and a couple who want to marry against the wishes of the young lady's father. There is an excellent red herring, one of the few in this anthology.
In "The Four Wise Men" by Peter Lovesey, Watson must answer a call to duty from his former commanding officer in the Army, in order to help guard a medieval treasure in a Christmas pageant. The game is soon afoot, and Sherlock's powers of observation are as keen as ever.
Barbara Paul's "Eleemosynary, My Dear Watson" gives Holmes a jewel theft and a kidnapping to solve, which he does in his inimitable way. One clue seemed slightly too obvious to me, but it may not to other readers.
In "The Adventure of the Greatest Gift" by Loren D. Estleman, Holmes receives a wax cylinder containing a recording of a song popular in America. He takes it as a warning of a crime which could lead to war between Britain and France, and of course he leaps into action. This is Mycroft Holmes' only appearance in the volume.
There's plenty of misdirection in "The Case of the Rajah's Emerald" by Carolyn Wheat. Somehow, though, I suspected one of the great revelations in this one from the beginning, but I couldn't tell you exactly why. It didn't ruin the story for me, and there was still a surprise at the end.
On the other hand, Edward D. Hoch's "The Christmas Conspiracy" managed to take me completely unawares. I couldn't fathom why the crime would be committed or by whom, despite having a major clue dropped by one character. Very well done!
"The Music of Christmas" by L.B. Greenwood telegraphed the identity of the criminal from the start, but was well worth reading. One of the characters also tugged at the heartstrings.
Bill Crider's "The Adventure of the Christmas Bear" is largely memorable because of the appearance of Oscar Wilde as a character.
"The Adventure of the Naturalist's Stock Pin" by Jon L. Breen gives us Charles Darwin as Holmes' client. The mystery is less Sherlockian than some of the others, but I didn't mind reading it.
Daniel Stashower's "The Adventure of the Second Violet" was an interesting twist on a well-known Christmas story. I cannot say more without spoiling it, but he has a nice touch.
"The Human Mystery" by Tanith Lee is as dark as I expect from her, and was a depressing ending to the collection. It was, however, very well-written.
The anthology left me hungry for more Holmes, and wishing that I weren't between seasons of BBC's Sherlock or that I had another collection of stories on hand. That's the sign of a success, I think.
"The Christmas Gift" by Anne Perry is a nice little piece about a stolen Stradivarius and a couple who want to marry against the wishes of the young lady's father. There is an excellent red herring, one of the few in this anthology.
In "The Four Wise Men" by Peter Lovesey, Watson must answer a call to duty from his former commanding officer in the Army, in order to help guard a medieval treasure in a Christmas pageant. The game is soon afoot, and Sherlock's powers of observation are as keen as ever.
Barbara Paul's "Eleemosynary, My Dear Watson" gives Holmes a jewel theft and a kidnapping to solve, which he does in his inimitable way. One clue seemed slightly too obvious to me, but it may not to other readers.
In "The Adventure of the Greatest Gift" by Loren D. Estleman, Holmes receives a wax cylinder containing a recording of a song popular in America. He takes it as a warning of a crime which could lead to war between Britain and France, and of course he leaps into action. This is Mycroft Holmes' only appearance in the volume.
There's plenty of misdirection in "The Case of the Rajah's Emerald" by Carolyn Wheat. Somehow, though, I suspected one of the great revelations in this one from the beginning, but I couldn't tell you exactly why. It didn't ruin the story for me, and there was still a surprise at the end.
On the other hand, Edward D. Hoch's "The Christmas Conspiracy" managed to take me completely unawares. I couldn't fathom why the crime would be committed or by whom, despite having a major clue dropped by one character. Very well done!
"The Music of Christmas" by L.B. Greenwood telegraphed the identity of the criminal from the start, but was well worth reading. One of the characters also tugged at the heartstrings.
Bill Crider's "The Adventure of the Christmas Bear" is largely memorable because of the appearance of Oscar Wilde as a character.
"The Adventure of the Naturalist's Stock Pin" by Jon L. Breen gives us Charles Darwin as Holmes' client. The mystery is less Sherlockian than some of the others, but I didn't mind reading it.
Daniel Stashower's "The Adventure of the Second Violet" was an interesting twist on a well-known Christmas story. I cannot say more without spoiling it, but he has a nice touch.
"The Human Mystery" by Tanith Lee is as dark as I expect from her, and was a depressing ending to the collection. It was, however, very well-written.
The anthology left me hungry for more Holmes, and wishing that I weren't between seasons of BBC's Sherlock or that I had another collection of stories on hand. That's the sign of a success, I think.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cold Pursuit (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
What can I say about Cold Pursuit? It's bad. Unfortunately it's not in the "so bad it's good" category.
From its opening with an Oscar Wilde quote and music that sounds like a mix of the 80s and Sherlock Holmes I was intrigued. I knew I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I had hoped for something entertaining at the very least.
One thing that I was quickly baffled by was the between scene captions, a terrible font pops up with the relevant information and then it blows away as if made by snow... but not every time. I did wonder if even the graphics people got bored of doing it.
SOP for me and new movie releases is that I make 2 A5 sides of notes, for Cold Pursuit I made 7... SEVEN... and the general consensus of most of them was "WTF", "ridiculous" and "why?!" In fact those were probably the most used words on all the pages.
The characters are all over the place. Viking's relationship with his son, the token gay relationship that felt like it had just been wedged in and White Bull's gang dubious frolicking... I just don't even know what to say about it.
I can't sit here and list all the bizarre things, neither of us have the time for that so let's skip to the things I enjoyed. There are just three things, much quicker than covering the other stuff!
Wingman's wife was a star for me, and that nail sharpening technique was inspired... totally stealing that.
One of the scenes has Coxman chasing his next target with his snowplow. He comes up on him quite menacingly and then the film did a great job of fooling me, I was expecting one thing and given another. That part of the scene came together quite well, it's just a shame about what followed.
Viking's son was surprisingly wise in almost all of his scenes, very laid back, just going with the flow. Out of all of it though I loved the scene about fantasy football when he's talking with Mustang. It was was a nice little addition.
That's it, I'm done with the things I liked.
The cinema was "full" when I saw it. There were 30-40 people, which for our cinema and this type of film on opening night in a small screen, wasn't bad at all. There were old and young, there were people who snored and people who laughed, I fell into neither of those last categories. Honestly I was in too much shock to do anything other than pick my jaw up off the floor.
Ultimately Cold Pursuit is another prime example of why you shouldn't put some of your best scenes in the trailers. The whole thing could probably have been sold on lesser scenes in the trailer and then the impact of the bigger ones would have potentially given it a few more stars.
What you should do
I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, Neeson has performed much better acts of revenge in many of his other films... just watch one of those... perhaps from behind a snow globe to make it seem like you're watching Cold Pursuit.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Please could I have Coxman's ability to get into places where he clearly doesn't meet the dress code.
From its opening with an Oscar Wilde quote and music that sounds like a mix of the 80s and Sherlock Holmes I was intrigued. I knew I wasn't expecting a masterpiece but I had hoped for something entertaining at the very least.
One thing that I was quickly baffled by was the between scene captions, a terrible font pops up with the relevant information and then it blows away as if made by snow... but not every time. I did wonder if even the graphics people got bored of doing it.
SOP for me and new movie releases is that I make 2 A5 sides of notes, for Cold Pursuit I made 7... SEVEN... and the general consensus of most of them was "WTF", "ridiculous" and "why?!" In fact those were probably the most used words on all the pages.
The characters are all over the place. Viking's relationship with his son, the token gay relationship that felt like it had just been wedged in and White Bull's gang dubious frolicking... I just don't even know what to say about it.
I can't sit here and list all the bizarre things, neither of us have the time for that so let's skip to the things I enjoyed. There are just three things, much quicker than covering the other stuff!
Wingman's wife was a star for me, and that nail sharpening technique was inspired... totally stealing that.
One of the scenes has Coxman chasing his next target with his snowplow. He comes up on him quite menacingly and then the film did a great job of fooling me, I was expecting one thing and given another. That part of the scene came together quite well, it's just a shame about what followed.
Viking's son was surprisingly wise in almost all of his scenes, very laid back, just going with the flow. Out of all of it though I loved the scene about fantasy football when he's talking with Mustang. It was was a nice little addition.
That's it, I'm done with the things I liked.
The cinema was "full" when I saw it. There were 30-40 people, which for our cinema and this type of film on opening night in a small screen, wasn't bad at all. There were old and young, there were people who snored and people who laughed, I fell into neither of those last categories. Honestly I was in too much shock to do anything other than pick my jaw up off the floor.
Ultimately Cold Pursuit is another prime example of why you shouldn't put some of your best scenes in the trailers. The whole thing could probably have been sold on lesser scenes in the trailer and then the impact of the bigger ones would have potentially given it a few more stars.
What you should do
I can't in good conscience recommend this to anyone, Neeson has performed much better acts of revenge in many of his other films... just watch one of those... perhaps from behind a snow globe to make it seem like you're watching Cold Pursuit.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Please could I have Coxman's ability to get into places where he clearly doesn't meet the dress code.