Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Stephen King's A Good Marriage (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Good Marriage starts with the anniversary party of Darcy (Allen) and Bob Anderson (LaPaglia) with their grown up children Petra (Connolly) and Donnie (Stockman). Everything on the outside looks like it is going great for the couple and what could possibly be shocking about them? The couple seem to have a follower in Holt Ramsey (Lang) but why?
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Darcy’s life takes a sudden change when searching for batteries she finds a hidden box with the drivers licences of woman who are found dead. As Darcy struggles to deal with the realisation that she is married to a serial killer we watch how Bob is tracking down him latest victim while away on business. We have to watch how Bob and Darcy try to work through the problems because spilling the secret could ruin the family.
A Good Marriage really does end up coming off very dull, the concept sounds very interesting. I feel this story should have been a hell of a lot tenser because of the action of the husband especially with the idea that the wife doesn’t want to destroy her children’s lives with the secret. I can honestly say I was expecting a look into the husband’s killing and an actual confrontation rather than just a calm talking about his actions. Overall the story doesn’t come off very well at all and I can honestly say this will disappoint any and all the Stephen King Fans out there. (2/10)
Actor Review
Joan Allen: Darcy Anderson is the loving mother and wife who discovers her husband’s secret. Darcy has to try and figure out what to do because talking will destroy the family but she also knows the next victim will now be here fault. Joan does a solid job but doesn’t reach the levels you would expect to make you feel like her character is scared or keeping a brave face. (5/10)
Anthony LaPaglia: Bob Anderson is the account husband of Darcy who has been living a different life behind his family’s back as a serial killer. When his wife discovers his secret he has to convince her not to go to the cops and ruin the life the children think they have had. Anthony is an actor I would expect to be able to play this role really well but he doesn’t seem to get into the role enough to make us believe he is a killer. (3/10)
Support Cast: A Good Marriage has a supporting cast that are mostly people Darcy is trying to protect from the truth, but it also has a man trying to find out the truth about the killer.
Director Review: Peter Askin – Peter doesn’t give us enough tension in a film that should be filled to the rim with tension because of the subject matter. (3/10)
Thriller: A Good Marriage is a film that should be filled with tension but this manages to let it all go without capitalising on the idea. (2/10)
Settings: A Good Marriage keeps the settings great because the idea would be that the killer is in plain sight living a normal life. (9/10)
Suggestion: A Good Marriage has to go down as one to avoid because it really does disappoint trying to tell an easy story. (Avoid)
Best Part: Hard to find anything.
Worst Part: No Tension.
Improve Ideas: High tension level.
Believability: The idea does come from a real serial killer but the outcome on film doesn’t really work. (3/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 42 Minutes
Trivia: This is Stephen King’s first self-adapted screenplay since “Pet Sematary,” which was released 25 years earlier. The last feature film script he wrote was “Sleepwalkers,” released in 1992. Since then he has written TV movies, mini-series and shows, such as “The Stand,” “The Shining” and “Kingdom Hospital.”
Overall: Very disappointing thriller with no actual tension.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/06/04/a-good-marriage-2014/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated American Gods - Season 1 in TV
Jan 27, 2019
An intriguing & decent adaptation
I really enjoyed the book and had heard good things about the show, and I’m please to say that for the most part this is a very good adaptation.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.
I completely agree with everyone else that has compared this to Hannibal. From the effective visual imagery and the dream sequences, to the impressive amount of blood and gore, it’s difficult not to recognise parts of Hannibal in this. Unsurprising though considering they’re both made by Bryan Fuller. Ian McShane is truly fantastic as Mr Wednesday, they couldn’t have picked anyone better and even Ricky Whittle is brilliant as Shadow. He really has come a long way from his Hollyoaks days! There are also some great cameo/supporting performances from Gillian Anderson, Crispin Glover, Peter Stormare and Orlando Jones.
The story does at least start off following the book but does veer off slightly as the episodes move on. In some cases, this isn’t a bad thing. I like what they’ve done with Shadow’s character, making him more outgoing and vocal than his too quiet persona in the books. This works. What doesn’t work is what they’ve done with Laura. I can see why they’ve wanted to make her a more central character, but for me this just doesn’t work. She’s so annoying and brash and the episodes that concentrate mostly around her were the dullest of the entire series. I just hate her whole angry persona and if it wasn’t for the fact that she’s usually on screen alongside Mad Sweeney (who’s a great character), I’m not sure I could tolerate her. The show also puts you in the same position as Shadow, completely confused about what’s going on. It’s not too bad when you’ve read the book, but I can imagine it being a little too much if you haven’t.
In all a visually stunning show with a few flaws, but still some great potential.
JT (287 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Looking back I’ve written a number of horror film reviews which, probably highlights what my favourite genre is? I’ve not been into torture porn or serious amounts of gore. I don’t mind it in small doses, but I prefer films that get under your skin – case in point, Session 9.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Amsterdam (2022) in Movies
Nov 21, 2022
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.
And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.
For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.
And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.
As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.
And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.
Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Groupers (2019) in Movies
Sep 26, 2019
Greetings & Salutations Fellow Movie Fanatics!
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one
It’s not often I see a film that is so good in my opinion, I actually look forward to writing about it and letting you folks know what’s what. In all honesty though, I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m the last person to see it. Quite frankly, I’m surprised that I have not heard or read anything about this movie already. How they managed to put everything together and create a film like this where the runtime is just a 1 hour and 49 minutes is beyond my comprehension. Yes, I said JUST and 1 and 49 minutes. Now that might seem a tad long on the tooth as far as movies go but once you watch it, I think you’ll understand my perception of it. I don’t think my review will do the movie justice but I want to tell you folks about in the hopes that you’ll immediately seek out a means of watching it.
‘Groupers’ is a dramatic comedy film written/directed by Anderson Cowan and stars Nicole Dambro, Jesse Pudles, Cameron Duckett, Peter Mayer-Klepchick, Max Reed III, Brian Loakimedes, Terrance Wentz, Travis Stanberry, Marqus Bobesich, Edward Jackson, Kaleb Rich-Harris, Mike Carano, Robin S. Roth, Laurence Scott Murphy, and Travis Lee Elder.
Orin (Pudles) is a high school student who is dealing with what has become unfortunately an all too common occurrence in schools and colleges today. He is a young person who faces ridicule and bullying because he is gay. The source of the majority of this harassment are two of his fellow students, best friends Brad (Mayer-Klepchick) and Dylan (Duckett). Fast forward to a night when Brad and Dylan decide roll with their over-inflated egos make the rounds at a bar or two and engage in some underage drinking and attempt to impress a fellow female patron or two. Just as the two jocks are beginning to get plastered they’re approached by Meg (Dambro). It doesn’t take much convincing at this point, Meg invites them to come with her and somehow they manage to follow her out of the back of the bar where they are more or less thrown into the back of a van (they pretty much threw themselves in the van). Already this is turning into something that sound like a ‘scary urban legend kind of movie’ right? Not even fully grasping the situation they’re in, Brad and Dylan get psyched up at the supposed prospect of engaging in unnatural activities when fumes engulf the inside of the van and the two jocks are knocked out cold. Several hours later, Brad and Dylan regain consciousness to find themselves restrained at the bottom of an empty pool. Meg, the girl from the bar, is actually a grad student and explains that the two of them are now part of a social experiment and implies that their lives depend on participating in the experiment regardless of the results. What follows is a downward spiral of lies, revenge, more than one close call with death, and an unforeseen series unforeseen guests that turn the tables on the participants in the experiment but each other as well.
The as the film progresses, it becomes vendetta driven. The seriously comedic aspects don’t start until at least a third of the way in unless you count the idiotic behavior of Brad and Dylan. At that point, the humor is driven by the unforeseen circumstances that Meg could not possibly have anticipated nor would anyone who appeared to prepare for this so thoroughly. The fact is the experiment should have progressed as she planned regardless of the outcome. All in all, this is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. I’d actually go so far as to say it’s in the top 5 and will remain there I can guarantee that. The film is similar to that of movies like ‘Pulp Fiction’ in the sense that it progresses backwards in relation to certain events and then jumps back into the present. It is NOT difficult to follow though. The premise of the film is one of the most original I’ve seen in a while. Note how the cast managed to make such an awesome film considering most of it takes place in a derelict house with an empty pool. Nothing is overshadowed in the film either. You have a movie that manages to encompass serious subject matter one minute and the next minute you can’t help but laugh and again neither overshadows the other. The cast? Absolutely awesome! They should be absolutely proud of this film and what they’ve accomplished with it. They should certainly consider ‘getting the band back together’ for other projects too. I’d go so far as to say the film deserves a theater release for sure. Nicole Dambro ‘Meg’ is most certainly a talent movie viewers should look out for. Her character’s presence commands such attention from the other characters while she herself commands the attention of the audience. The film has drugs and alcohol plus questionable dialogue and language plus some nudity so definitely NOT one for young folks. As I mention earlier, it’s a bit long on the tooth timewise at 1 hour and 49 minutes but it’s SO worth it. Just make sure you get drinks and snacks prior to the movie. I’m going to go ahead and rate this one 5 out of 5 stars. Give some real thought to seeing ‘Groupers’ . Trust me on this one