Search
Search results
Awix (3310 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Jun 12, 2018 (Updated Jul 12, 2019)
Krays-y
Yet another movie glamourising the vicious real-life gangster siblings, with the principal gimmick of Tom Hardy playing both Krays through the wonders of something-or-other. Hardy is excellent as Reggie, the merely-psychotic brains of the outfit, but way over the top as Ronnie, who is portrayed as a slightly thick criminal maniac, and arguably played for laughs too. A friend of mine came out thinking this was intended to be a black comedy; she may not have been wrong.
There's a good supporting cast and it's quite well made, but the film seems much too keen to cut the Krays some slack, presenting them as roguish anti-heroes rather than the brutal thugs they actually were. The 1990 Peter Medak telling of the Krays' story was arguably more balanced - this is an uneasy combination of a 'those quaint old Brits' period drama and a modishly violent modern gangster film.
There's a good supporting cast and it's quite well made, but the film seems much too keen to cut the Krays some slack, presenting them as roguish anti-heroes rather than the brutal thugs they actually were. The 1990 Peter Medak telling of the Krays' story was arguably more balanced - this is an uneasy combination of a 'those quaint old Brits' period drama and a modishly violent modern gangster film.
Kate and her husband Ron, have a seemingly perfect life: happily married, two kids, etc. So Kate is thrown off by her attraction to another man, Peter Ash, when she meets him at a dinner party held by one of Ron's colleagues and his own wife. Peter himself is married, with twin sons. Unable to get Peter out her mind, Kate ignores the warnings of her friend Beth, and arranges an encounter. Shortly after that event, Kate and Beth are involved in a horrific terrorist attack, and it seems like nothing will ever be the same.
This was a slightly bizarre novel with an interesting premise: a sort of anti-adultery treatise, in a way. The novel confounded me slightly with its two different tracks: one of personal angst and murder (I don't think it's a spoiler to state that shortly after the terrorist attack, Peter Ash winds up murdered) and then the terrorist attack, which seems somewhat oddly inserted into the novel's plot. Kate's friend Beth is a police detective, and for me, Beth was driving force of the book (and seriously, practically the only sane person in this story). I enjoyed her character and while it's been noted that this was a standalone novel for Lescroart, I could see another book featuring her.
Beth is perplexed as she tries to solve Peter Ash's murder. For us: not really. I felt as if the suspect was fairly easily identifiable the whole time. Lescroart did a fairly good job as casting suspicions on someone else; at one point, I finally thought, oh, ok, maybe I really am wrong (but I wasn't). There's a whole host of characters in the novel and they are interesting, but not really as complex or intricate as Beth. Overall, I enjoyed this novel-- I haven't read anything by Lescroart since some of his early Dismas Hardy books ages ago-- but I didn't find it to have an amazing "wow" factor or anything. It was an interesting, if somewhat predictable thriller, with some strange plot points thrown in.
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 01/24/2017.
This was a slightly bizarre novel with an interesting premise: a sort of anti-adultery treatise, in a way. The novel confounded me slightly with its two different tracks: one of personal angst and murder (I don't think it's a spoiler to state that shortly after the terrorist attack, Peter Ash winds up murdered) and then the terrorist attack, which seems somewhat oddly inserted into the novel's plot. Kate's friend Beth is a police detective, and for me, Beth was driving force of the book (and seriously, practically the only sane person in this story). I enjoyed her character and while it's been noted that this was a standalone novel for Lescroart, I could see another book featuring her.
Beth is perplexed as she tries to solve Peter Ash's murder. For us: not really. I felt as if the suspect was fairly easily identifiable the whole time. Lescroart did a fairly good job as casting suspicions on someone else; at one point, I finally thought, oh, ok, maybe I really am wrong (but I wasn't). There's a whole host of characters in the novel and they are interesting, but not really as complex or intricate as Beth. Overall, I enjoyed this novel-- I haven't read anything by Lescroart since some of his early Dismas Hardy books ages ago-- but I didn't find it to have an amazing "wow" factor or anything. It was an interesting, if somewhat predictable thriller, with some strange plot points thrown in.
I received a copy of this novel from Netgalley and the publisher (thank you!) in return for an unbiased review; it is available everywhere as of 01/24/2017.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Do you like time travel
“It feels like a movie born from a different era.” That is the thought that immediately flooded my brain upon leaving the cinema after watching Venom. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing of course. Hundreds of amazing films have been born well before superhero films became the successful genre they are today.
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
Nevertheless, in Venom’s case, what we have is a film that struggles to create a consistent tone throughout its rather succinct running time. But is the film still a success for Sony?
Journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is trying to take down Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed), the notorious and brilliant founder of the Life Foundation. While investigating one of Drake’s experiments, Eddie’s body merges with the alien Venom – leaving him with superhuman strength and power. Twisted, dark and fuelled by rage, Venom tries to control the new and dangerous abilities that Eddie finds so intoxicating.
Director of the absolutely brilliant, Zombieland and its upcoming sequel, Ruben Fleischer seems like the perfect choice to helm a solo movie for Peter Parker’s arch nemesis, but the result is muddled – speckled with excellent moments that are lowered by frequently jarring editing techniques and a brawl for identity. Whether that’s down to studio interference or just a misunderstanding of the source material is up for debate.
Let’s start with the best bit: the cast. Venom’s cast is of such a high quality, it really needs reeling off to be believed. We’ve got Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams and Riz Ahmed all in lead parts. Hardy is his ever-charming self in a role that is vastly different from his portrayal of Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. His ‘bromance’ with Venom is by far the standout of the entire film with witty dialogue and amusing physical comedy. In particular, one scene set in an lobster restaurant had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, Michelle Williams, one of our most talented actresses is wasted in a thankless role as Brock’s girlfriend, Annie. She’s supposed to be a lawyer, but apart from a few lines of dialogue explaining that fact, she’s completely by-the-numbers WAG. Riz Ahmed suffers a similar fate. His Carlton Drake is so pantomime villain-esque, you half expect him to start twirling a moustache.
Then there’s the film itself. The special effects rarely rise above adequate and the cartoonish CGI used to create Venom himself is frankly, quite poor. You’re never under the illusion that the symbiote could be real, it just looks far too machine generated. With a budget of $100million, this is wholly unacceptable. It’s also noisy and pretty ugly to look at, constantly murky with a muddy colour palate that tries desperately to be edgy and cool – it fails.
Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age
The plot is typical origins story which is to be expected, but there’s very little to thrill or surprise and the first hour is poorly paced. It’s not until we see Venom in his full form that things get out of the gate and Venom finds its footing.
Part buddy-comedy, part superhero flick and part body horror, Venom struggles to maintain a consistent identity. Much like the titular antihero, the film feels like a parasite, latching onto different genres until it finally finds one that fits its needs.
This is a real shame as there are moments of brilliance here. The dialogue between Venom and Brock is great and while the story isn’t anything out of the ordinary, an origins plot for an antihero rather than a traditional superhero is an inspired choice. The lack of Tom Holland’s Peter Parker really doesn’t matter too much, though I can’t help but be disappointed that these two may never meet on film.
Finally, the bizarre decision to aim for a PG-13 rating in the US has inexplicably landed it with a 15 certification here in the UK. 15 rating superhero films include Deadpool and its sequel, Logan and Watchmen. If you’re hoping for gore to the standard of those, you’ll be very dissatisfied. Despite all his head-chomping glory, Venom doesn’t even have a hint of the red stuff.
In the end, despite its best efforts, Venom just comes out very ‘meh’. In a world populated by standout superhero movies like Captain America: Civil War, Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok, Venom feels totally and unequivocally outdated and from a different age. Thankfully, it’s not Catwoman levels of bad, maybe X-Men: The Last Stand levels of average.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/10/04/venom-review-do-you-like-time-travel/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Great Race (1965) in Movies
Jul 6, 2018
A fun throwback to 1920's Silent Film Farces
In a tribute to films of a bygone era, Director Blake Edwards pays homage to silent film farces of the 1920's - even dedicating this film to "Mr. Laurel and Mr. Hardy" - with the slapstick comedy THE GREAT RACE - and succeeds, mostly.
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Reteaming Tony Curtis (as the brave, virtuous and good "The Great Leslie") and Jack Lemmon (as the sinister, dastardly and evil "Professor Fate"), The Great Race is great fun watching these two cartoon characters spar and parry with each other throughout the course of this 2 hour and 40 minute farce.
Lemmon, in particular, relishes in dual roles as the menacing Fate, always dressed in black, twirling his mustache and coming up with scheme after scheme to derail Leslie (think the Coyote in the RoadRunner cartoons). His overacting and hammyness in the character is perfect for the tone that this film has set. And his maniacal laugh is one to remember - unless you are remembering the childlike guffaws of the other character Lemmon portrays, the doppelganger of Fate, Crown Prince Frederick. Both these characters are fun to watch and Fate, especially, plays well against his bumbling assistant and foil, "Max", played in utter buffoonishness by the great Peter Falk.
Joining Curtis for the "good guys" is Natalie Wood as Suffragette and Newspaper
Reporter Maggie DuBois (obviously tailored after real life Suffragette and Newspaper Reporter Nellie Bly). It is said that Curtis and Wood did not get along on set (they had worked together in 2 other films and grew to dislike each other), but their on-screen chemistry cannot be ignored and they are fun together. As is the great Keenan Wynn as Leslie's mechanic and friend Hezekiah Sturdy.
But it is not the characters that makes this film go it is the set pieces and frenetic pacing that Director Edwards put before us. From thrilling chase scenes to a Western barroom brawl, to a trip through a blizzard with a polar bear to the "largest pie fight ever put on screen", this film delivers the goods in a wholesome, 1960's way that makes me truly say...
"They don't make 'em like this anymore".
8 out 10 stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)