Search
Search results
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Power Rangers (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
If I had a pound for every time someone said they wanted a live-action Power Rangers reboot, I’d have exactly… nothing. The popular television series isn’t the first franchise that comes to mind when imagining films that’ll draw in the crowds, especially considering its era was very much the 90s.
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Nevertheless, production company Lionsgate has taken the chance and given the plucky superheroes their first film in 20 years. But does this classic brand have what it takes to excite 21st Century audiences?
Five ordinary teenagers must band together to become something extraordinary when they learn that their small town of Angel Grove – and the world – is on the verge of being obliterated by the villainous Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks). Chosen by destiny, the new heroes quickly discover they are the only ones who can save the planet. But to do so, they will have to overcome the issues blighting their real lives and before it’s too late, band together as the Power Rangers.
Director Dean Israelite in his second feature film crafts a gritty, modern-day reimagining of the series that manages to lose nearly all the campy fun in the process. It’s such a shame that a film as progressive as Power Rangers gets bogged down in poor pacing, expositional dialogue, messy action sequences and hilariously obvious product placement for Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
“How is it progressive” I hear you say. Well, this is the first film to feature an autistic superhero and a female protagonist who appears to be questioning her sexuality and for that Power Rangers should be given huge applause.
There is also an impressive cast. Bryan Cranston playing wise former Ranger Zordon is one of the most bizarre casting choices in recent memory. He’s certainly very good, though why he would choose a project of this nature is beyond me. The new Rangers are all fine with RJ Cyler probably coming across best as the autistic Billy Cranston.
Unfortunately, Elizabeth Banks is the only person who seems to grasp the camp, cheesy nature of the original television series. Her completely over-the-top performance is one of the best parts of the film, but it feels at odds with the darker tone that’s been set.
Pacing is also not a strong point. At 124 minutes, you’d be forgiven for thinking there’s time to pop in an origins story, a nice training montage and a climactic battle. It’s there in some form, but our heroes don’t “suit up” until the final 20 minutes which then becomes a mess of brash CGI as the film-makers try to tie up all the loose ends.
Overall, Power Rangers isn’t the royal mess it could have been. It’s stylish, progressive and well-acted with a decent storyline that desperately tries to bring this 90s pop-culture phenomena very much into the 21st Century.
Unfortunately, Lionsgate haven’t realised that retro is all the rage and in updating Power Rangers for a modern audience, they’ve lost what made the series and its films so endearing in the first place. It’s definitely better than 2015’s Fantastic Four, but Guardians of the Galaxy it isn’t.
Anyone fancy a doughnut?
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/04/08/anyone-for-doughnuts-power-rangers-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A new franchise is reborn
It seems that the Marvel Cinematic Universe has kicked off a trend over in tinseltown. Shared franchises are all the rage at the moment, and why not. Marvel has taken over $10billion. DC has finally found its footing with Wonder Woman and Legendary are fusing Godzilla with Kong: Skull Island to create their own monster universe.
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
But for every success story there is a failed series that didn’t quite grab the cinema-going public with The Golden Compass and The Last Airbender immediately springing to mind. Nevertheless, Universal Pictures has pushed ahead with creating its own ‘Dark Universe’. Proceedings kick off with The Mummy. But how does this reboot fare?
Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) is a soldier of fortune who plunders ancient sites for timeless artefacts and sells them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner (Jake Johnson) come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess (Sofia Boutella) who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.
First-time director and long-time screenwriter Alex Kurtzman crafts a film that moves at breakneck speed, features a lot of nifty set-pieces and is an intriguing precursor to the next instalment of the franchise. It’s pretty good fun to be honest.
Tom Cruise is as reliable as ever, and does all the Tom Cruise staples; running, heavy breathing, shirtless preening, but the stand-out performance here is Russell Crowe’s Dr. Henry Jekyll (yes, that’s right). Despite being slightly underused, Crowe is a fantastic choice to play this multi-layered character. Elsewhere, Sofia Boutella is very good as Ahmanet.
Unfortunately, Jake Johnson (Jurassic World) and Cruise’s love interest Annabelle Wallis (King Arthur: Legend of the Sword) feel miscast with Wallis in particular having no believable chemistry with her co-star.
To look at The Mummy is first-rate. Gone are the campy special effects of the Brendan Fraser-era films, instead replaced with crisp CGI – though the dark and gloomy filming style hampers the obviously great effects. Nevertheless, the aircraft and subsequent crash sequences that have been marketed in the trailers are gripping and produced very well indeed.
Unfortunately, The Mummy relies heavily on jump scares, of which there are far too many, and the trade-off for that rollercoaster pace is a film that feels disjointed, relying on visually stunning action sequences to cover over cracks in the story. Some of the humour also falls flat.
Ultimately though, these are small gripes in a vastly entertaining popcorn flick that is a very solid starting point to a series that will include films like The Invisible Man, Bride of Frankenstein and The Wolfman.
Whilst not the most original film you will see this year, The Mummy opens up some intriguing doors and whilst I’m in no rush to see it again, despite its competence, I’m excited to see how Universal will bring all of their iconic monsters back to the big screen in one unified franchise.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/06/10/a-new-franchise-is-reborn-the-mummy-review/
If you thought a modern retelling of [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926]--set mainly in present day Cincinnati--didn't exactly sound like a page-turner, no one could exactly blame you. But, nonetheless, you'd be quite wrong. Sittenfeld's novel imagines the Bennet family in our modern times; Mr. and Mrs. Bennet live in a rambling Tudor home in Cincinnati: broke and somewhat clueless as their house crumbles around them. Mrs. Bennet spends her time clucking around her five unmarried daughters: Jane, Liz, Mary, Kitty, and Lydia. The book revolves mainly around the perspective of Liz, a magazine writer in her upper thirties living in New York City. She and Jane, also in NYC, return home to their parents and younger sisters after Mr. Bennet has a heart attack, only to find the house and the family in a bit of a shambles.
The book is amazing. It's been a while since I read [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926], but even I can tell you that the novel does an excellent job of following the original plot without being annoying or cloying. It's [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926] with lesbians and hate sex! The book comes across as familiar yet new, allowing you to ache, laugh, and rage at what feels like a group of old friends.
Mr. Bennet is a trip, even while having a heartbreaking sadness and sweetness at his core (though some of his zingers are priceless). The younger sisters are as (nearly) vapid as to be expected--truly awful at times--for much of the book. But seriously, Lydia and Kitty loving CrossFit? It's awesome. And Liz is wonderful; you will adore this surprisingly realistic and modern Liz, with all of her foibles and issues: a truly modern Liz struggling mightily to keep her family together and afloat.
As for Darcy, well he's as Darcy as ever. Somehow Sittenfeld has managed to truly capture the essence of Austen's Darcy and Elizabeth in her new characters. I don't know how, but it's funny and lovely all at the same time. (Side note: As a woman in her early thirties, will I ever be able to read about Darcy without picturing Colin Firth? I now have a desperate need to watch the BBC/A&E mini-series again.)
Overall, I found this book funny, touching, and compulsively readable. The characters are truly characters: they are fully formed within moments of picking up the book. The city of Cincinnati makes a great guest appearance, with the city playing a prominent role in many scenes (hi Skyline Chili!). If you loved the original, you'll find this updated version enjoyable and imaginative, with a surprising depth behind it. If you've never read Austen's work (and you should), you will still discover a funny, sweet yet weighty story of a family trying to make it in this day and age. Highly recommended (4.5 stars).
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 4/19/16. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
The book is amazing. It's been a while since I read [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926], but even I can tell you that the novel does an excellent job of following the original plot without being annoying or cloying. It's [b:Pride and Prejudice|1885|Pride and Prejudice|Jane Austen|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1320399351s/1885.jpg|3060926] with lesbians and hate sex! The book comes across as familiar yet new, allowing you to ache, laugh, and rage at what feels like a group of old friends.
Mr. Bennet is a trip, even while having a heartbreaking sadness and sweetness at his core (though some of his zingers are priceless). The younger sisters are as (nearly) vapid as to be expected--truly awful at times--for much of the book. But seriously, Lydia and Kitty loving CrossFit? It's awesome. And Liz is wonderful; you will adore this surprisingly realistic and modern Liz, with all of her foibles and issues: a truly modern Liz struggling mightily to keep her family together and afloat.
As for Darcy, well he's as Darcy as ever. Somehow Sittenfeld has managed to truly capture the essence of Austen's Darcy and Elizabeth in her new characters. I don't know how, but it's funny and lovely all at the same time. (Side note: As a woman in her early thirties, will I ever be able to read about Darcy without picturing Colin Firth? I now have a desperate need to watch the BBC/A&E mini-series again.)
Overall, I found this book funny, touching, and compulsively readable. The characters are truly characters: they are fully formed within moments of picking up the book. The city of Cincinnati makes a great guest appearance, with the city playing a prominent role in many scenes (hi Skyline Chili!). If you loved the original, you'll find this updated version enjoyable and imaginative, with a surprising depth behind it. If you've never read Austen's work (and you should), you will still discover a funny, sweet yet weighty story of a family trying to make it in this day and age. Highly recommended (4.5 stars).
I received an ARC of this novel from Netgalley (thank you!); it is available for U.S. publication on 4/19/16. You can check out a review of this novel and many others on my <a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">blog</a>;.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Anatomy of Innocence: Testimonies of the Wrongfully Convicted in Books
Mar 15, 2018
With movements like Black Lives Matter at the forefront of society right now, and multiple documentaries about wrongful convictions such as Steven Avery and The West Memphis Three out, there has never been a better time for this book to come out and be read. This topic is <i><b>so important.</i></b>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Reading about the lives of these poor, innocent human beings being treated like theyre dirt, like theyre less than dirt, is devastating. A number of these stories actually brought tears to my eyes. How this injustice goes on, I cant fathom. In many of these stories we hear how there are alibis that prove the person wasnt there to commit the crime, but they convict them anyway. There are confessions from other people to crimes, yet they will convict someone else. There is someone elses DNA on a victim's body but they will commit someone whose DNA is not on the body. And possibly the worst one of them all, there are statements from VICTIMS that the person they have arrested is not the right person, yet they will still convict them. How can a legal system, thats supposed to protect us and who were supposed to trust, let this happen? It makes my blood boil.
In this book, each persons story is written by a prolific crime writer, so all of these accounts are really well written and they really bring out raw emotions in you because theyre so well presented and you can feel the exonerees pain.
Many of these people spent over a decade, if not over <b>two decades</b> of their life trapped in the walls of dirty prisons for crimes they were innocent of, such as murder, child murder, rape and GBH. The brutality of the officers arresting these people makes me sick. <b>Literal</b> torture is used on innocent people, as young as 17, to coax a <b>false confession</b> out of them, all because they want to be able to arrest someone. What makes me sicker is that these officers and the higher powers who turn(ed) a blind eye to this kind of abuse are never charged or made to own up to their brutalities AND because of the idiocy of these *insert the worst possible swear word and insults here* policemen, real child sex offenders and heartless murderers are <b>NEVER CAUGHT.</b>
This book is hopeful, but it is also heart breaking and while I could go on forever talking about the hatred and rage that this book makes me feel, but Im going to end it with this instead.
<b><blockquote>GLORIA KILLIAN
DAVID BATES
RAY TOWLER
MICHAEL EVANS
KEN WYNIEMKO
KIRK BLOODWORTH
AUDREY EDMUNDS
ALTON LOGAN
PETER REILLY
GINNY LEFEVER
BILL DILLON
JEFF DESKOVIC
ANTOINE DAY
JERRY MILLER
JUAN RIVERA</blockquote></b>
<b>You are brave and you are strong. Thank you for sharing your stories with us and shining a light on a subject so often ignored. I hope the world does nothing but right by you from here on in. You, over anyone, deserve it.</b>
I have been inspired. I am now going to look into the UKs own Innocence Group and see what I can do to help those 10% who are wrongly convicted and being left to rot in prison.
<i>Thanks to Netgalley and W. W. Norton & Company for giving me the opportunity to read this book in exchange for an honest review.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Back in the early 1980s, a young boy who found himself without friends and tormented by bullies was about to have an unexpected and life-changing experience. Alone on his birthday, the young boy opens his one gift from his mom and is delighted to find a magic kit and instructional video by reknowned magician Lance Holloway (Alan Arkin). His early attempts at magic gain him a new friend and the two become inseparable through their love and practice of magic.
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Flash forward, and the two friends are now all the rage in the world of magic. Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell), and Anton Marvelton (Steve Buscemi), have packed their theater night after night with a dazzling mix of music, showmanship, and magic. Not only does this keep their boss (James Gandolfini) happy, but it allows Burt to enjoy all of the perks of being a Las Vegas headliner: fame, fortune, and women.
Ten years later it’s a different story for the two friends. While they still have a very popular show, creative differences between the two have arisen and Burt has become a very pompous and self-centered individual. He treats those around him with utter disdain and has driven off numerous assistants due to his behavior. The latest to join his group is Jane (Olivia Wilde), whom Burt sees as nothing more than a person to assist on stage to make him look good, and to succumb to his charms after the show. When a new street magician named (Jim Carrey), starts to become garner attention with his new and shocking routines, Burt and Anton’s routine is suddenly looking very stale in comparison. Anton devises a new trick to be played out in public that he hopes will propel the duo to a fresh and hip image, but sadly things go horribly wrong and the best friends have a bitter falling out. Literally.
Burt attempts to go on with the show alone, but his ego will not allow him to acknowledge the fact that Anton was a big part of the show and that the act depends on both of them. With his career suddenly over and with no money, Burt hits rock bottom and must find a way to regain his former glory. In doing so he will have to reinvent himself and undergo a magical transformation of his own.
The movie is an absolute delight and is so much more enjoyable and funnier than the trailers imply. Carrell has pulled off his best movie since “The 40 Year Old Virgin”, and infuses Burt with a likeability and sense of wonder despite his narcissism. Buscemi and Arkin are great in their supporting roles and Carrey seems to be enjoying every minute of playing the film’s bad guy as he gives a performance that while restrained when compared to some of his more over the top roles works very well with the ensemble cast.
The film is an unexpected find as it is a comedy that does not pander to base humor to get laughs and instead uses situational comedy and the characters to tell a charming story sprinkled with some solid laughs along the way, especially in the final moments of the film.
http://sknr.net/2013/03/15/the-incredible-burt-wonderstone/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Alex Cross (2012) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Alex Cross starts with homicide detective Alex Cross (Perry) and his team Thomas (Burns) and Monica (Nichols) needing to show their skills when a new hired killer nicknamed Picasso (Fox) uses his torture and pain techniques while eliminating people.
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
When the team learns of the targets they must work with who they think is the main target Giles Mercier (Reno), but this has made his team the newest targets for Picasso, who makes the killings personal.
Thoughts on Alex Cross
Characters – Dr Alex Cross is a homicide detective, we have seen this character before, but this time we meet a younger version of him, before he becomes the FBI agent we know. Alex has a family and is on the way to making his big career decision, when Picasso comes into his life, Alex will need to balance his skills and rage to stop him. Picasso is a hired gun, he is one of the very best in the world, he enjoys the pain he gives and receives, he makes his mission personal and drives Alex to limits he has never been pushed before. Thomas is the partner of Alex, he is shorter tempered, but loyal to Alex. Giles Mercier seems to be the main target of Picasso mission, he is the rich man that gets what he wants.
Performances – Tyler Perry was considered a strange choice for the leading role in this movie, known mostly for comedy and taking over from Morgan Freeman, he just doesn’t reach his levels, but is good through the film. it is Matthew Fox that shines the most as the cold calculated killer that enjoys the pain. The commitment Fox showed to this role needs to be praised because of the physical change he put his body through makes him an unlikely looking threat. Edward Burn is good as the partner while not being anything special and Jean Reno will always be good in the role he takes.
Story – To step into another Alex Cross story is always going to be interesting, picking up before he became an FBI agent helps us understand what drove him to be the determined man we know. Making the story personal for Cross shows how he can balance the law and revenge in his attempts to solve the crime. The story might not reach the level of intensity is could have for a personal story, it does everything we need for an entertaining crime mystery thriller.
Action/Crime/Mystery – The action involved in the film is good, even if moments of the effects used are weak. The crime is an interesting one to watch unfold, but it takes away from the mystery because we are always on the same level of the cops, we are not feed anything to solve.
Settings – Detroit makes for a good setting, it always feels like it is a place known for the crime rates.
Scene of the Movie – Picasso introduction fight.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The Rocket effects.
Final Thoughts – This is an easy to watch crime thriller, it does everything it needs to do and is carried by a wonderful villain performance from Fox.
Overall: Crime fans watch.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/15/matthew-fox-weekend-alex-cross-2012/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lucky Grandma (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
The synopsis for this sounded okay but I can't say I was blown away. I popped this in my third tier films to watch at the London Film Festival, the "I'll try and see this if there's a gap" films. There was a gap so this ended up being my first film of the festival.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
Grandma Wong doesn't have a lot to live on, her son wants her to move in with his family but she likes her independence. When her doctor/fortune teller says she's got a change in fortunes coming she decides to throw caution to the wind and test this new luck out. The experiment goes well until she crosses paths with Mr Lin, a member of the Red Dragon gang.
Tsai Chin is a delight, a grumpy delight as Grandma. She's a face I recognised but of course I couldn't remember from what... to IMDb... Two Bond films! I'm a terrible movie viewer right now. As well as those there are lods of other films and shows to her name, lots that you'd recognise. Her portrayal of Grandma is wonderful, she's hardened but funny, her reaction to everything was hilarious to me. This is exactly how I see myself being as an old lady, without the life threatening situations... probably. Chin brought just the right feeling to this role and captured all her ups and downs with just the right amount of stubborn.
The reltionship forged with Big Pong, plays by Hsiao-Yuan Ha, is lovely. The strange little friendship is a sweet inclusion and even when it take a turn they manage to make it through. Big Pong is her bodyguard, it was never a conventional employer/employee relationship and their interactions are very protective towards each other. Big Pong has a real moment of sheer joy when eating Grandma's food and that expression along with a lot of Ha's performance brought me a really happy feeling.
Michael Tow as Little Handsome deserves a special mention, the pure nutball rage is really quite insane and I don't know how someone would manage to do that.
There are some great montages that sum up Grandma's life. The one at the beginning is amusing but the next proves to be a brilliant contrast after her luck has changed. I like its consistency and how it managed to accomodate the story without affecting her day to day life too much.
On a whole the film felt just the right length, it moved along fairly quickly and the quirky relationships keep you interested. It potentially could have focused on some more of the peripheral characters a little, but I actually enjoyed the main focus. The shots are quite traditional but there's one shot of Grandma's apartment as she hears intruders, it captures the whole apartment and we see her edge into shot hiding. It created a really tense moment and if gave the instinctive desire to try and look round the corner.
I'm sure this won't be to everyone's taste as there are a fair amount of subtitled bits but it really doesn't distract that much from the film.
What you should do
It's a fun little film and if it makes it into a release somewhere then it would be something fun to watch.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
A big bag of money wouldn't go amiss.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Nov 27, 2019
Verdict: Another King Fighting Film
Story: The King starts as the war between the English and the Scots continues to rage on, King Henry IV (Mendlesohn) is getting tired of the bloodshed and disloyalty being found in his own soldiers and with his health getting worse he recalls his son Hal (Chalamet) to his side.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
As Hal find himself in a new power, he doesn’t know who to trust, so he turns to Falstaff (Edgerton) to help him in battle, with in latest battle being with the future French king The Dauphin (Pattinson).
Thoughts on The King
Characters – Hal is the young prince that would become King, a role he isn’t ready for, he doesn’t want to see large scale bloodshed like his father’s reign, but finds his country in war from all sides, he wants to end the battles and will look for solutions, which don’t always work for him. Falstaff is the man Hal turns to for advice when it comes to conflict, he thought under King Richard and he knows how to outsmart an enemy, first he must give up his drinking problem though. The Dauphin is next in line to be king of France, he is leading the armies into battle and doesn’t want any part of a deal with the King of England.
Performances – Timothee Chalamet is strong in the leading role, continuing to put himself on the right path to do anything he wants to in the future. Joel Edgerton is always a great supporting star in any movie, this is no different, while Robert Pattinson as the villainous soon to be king does a great job too.
Story – The story here follows a young king taking his place on the throne while his country is involved in wars that he never started and now he wants to end, hoping to find a more peaceful way to end the battles, forcing him to learn the truth about the bitter war between the nations. This is one of those stories which once again puts our history out there for the world to see with the English being seen as an all-conquering nation that always believed they were right, the spin is seeing how the young king wants to try and find a more peaceful way to end things, but just doesn’t get a chance to solve these problems. The pacing follows everything we have seen before, not making this standout on any means whatsoever, which just leads us to disappointment once again.
Biopic/History – This is a film that claims to tell the story of a real king and how he was brave, just like every single one through the years, we don’t know what he was like or what the battles were like, we only know the outcome.
Settings – The settings show us how the kingdoms are beautiful and how the battlefields are covered in blood and bodies.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It is the same typical history story.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the period piece dramas that does everything it needs to without giving us the complete truth to what is happening with the real history.
Overall: Simple Royalty Film.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Rhythm Section (2019) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
The Rhythm Section popped up almost out of nowhere when it hit screens. Seeing the cast line-up I was very interested in seeing what it had to offer.
Stephanie has been a broken woman ever since her family died in a plane crash. The situation would be tough for anyone to deal with but it's made worse by the fact she was supposed to be on the plane too. Life in tatters, addicted to drugs and turning tricks for money she's all but given up on life. That's when Proctor appears.
Proctor is an investigative journalist who is tracking down the people responsible for the tragedy. He takes her in and she paws over his evidence. With a new found rage she goes off on her own, but actions have consequences and it's a steep learning curve.
There is something in The Rhythm Section, the story has a definite spark, but this final product didn't hit the right note for me. It's a classic story of revenge but the film doesn't seem to make much out of it. Littering it with flashbacks to fill in story and attempt to get us in Stephanie's head just adds to the jumpiness throughout. That jumpiness wasn't just reserved for the story, I noted that the camera movements early on were bizarre, I imagine in an effort to emulate her physical and mental state, but it was particularly jarring to watch.
The Rhythm Section seems to have no real way to follow the passage of time, which I feel was a mistake as it would have helped to make things more believable. Somehow B (Law) managed to get Stephanie off drugs, markedly improve her fitness levels and train her to be an (admittedly mediocre) assassin. With some concept of time elapsing I might have been on board with that transformation.
All that training seems to be for nought as she mainly survives off dumb luck during her travels. Her natural luck would also explain how she managed to capture the only bit of information she needed at the beginning of the film to find Proctor's well trained and secret source.
Law and Lively had some good moments in her training montage. There was some humour and friendship, of a sort, but the combative nature of both characters outside of that felt strained and neither appeared comfortable in the role. Sterling K. Brown playing Mark Serra seemed to be the most at home in the role, there was a spark there that gave him a confidence in what he was doing.
With a script written by the author of the source material I'm at a bit of a loss, this scenario should mean that it's a proper representation of the book but I'm left with little desire to experience any of the other three stories in this series having seen Rhythm Section.
As I said, there feels like there's something in this idea that would have made a great film, but it feels rushed and a little confused. The film ends in a way that could see a sequel, and that is possible given the other books in the series, but I can't see it progressing beyond one film off the back of this.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rhythm-section-movie-review.html
Stephanie has been a broken woman ever since her family died in a plane crash. The situation would be tough for anyone to deal with but it's made worse by the fact she was supposed to be on the plane too. Life in tatters, addicted to drugs and turning tricks for money she's all but given up on life. That's when Proctor appears.
Proctor is an investigative journalist who is tracking down the people responsible for the tragedy. He takes her in and she paws over his evidence. With a new found rage she goes off on her own, but actions have consequences and it's a steep learning curve.
There is something in The Rhythm Section, the story has a definite spark, but this final product didn't hit the right note for me. It's a classic story of revenge but the film doesn't seem to make much out of it. Littering it with flashbacks to fill in story and attempt to get us in Stephanie's head just adds to the jumpiness throughout. That jumpiness wasn't just reserved for the story, I noted that the camera movements early on were bizarre, I imagine in an effort to emulate her physical and mental state, but it was particularly jarring to watch.
The Rhythm Section seems to have no real way to follow the passage of time, which I feel was a mistake as it would have helped to make things more believable. Somehow B (Law) managed to get Stephanie off drugs, markedly improve her fitness levels and train her to be an (admittedly mediocre) assassin. With some concept of time elapsing I might have been on board with that transformation.
All that training seems to be for nought as she mainly survives off dumb luck during her travels. Her natural luck would also explain how she managed to capture the only bit of information she needed at the beginning of the film to find Proctor's well trained and secret source.
Law and Lively had some good moments in her training montage. There was some humour and friendship, of a sort, but the combative nature of both characters outside of that felt strained and neither appeared comfortable in the role. Sterling K. Brown playing Mark Serra seemed to be the most at home in the role, there was a spark there that gave him a confidence in what he was doing.
With a script written by the author of the source material I'm at a bit of a loss, this scenario should mean that it's a proper representation of the book but I'm left with little desire to experience any of the other three stories in this series having seen Rhythm Section.
As I said, there feels like there's something in this idea that would have made a great film, but it feels rushed and a little confused. The film ends in a way that could see a sequel, and that is possible given the other books in the series, but I can't see it progressing beyond one film off the back of this.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-rhythm-section-movie-review.html