Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Clash of the Titans (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The creators of this remake of Clash of the Titans changed quite a few things from the original 1981 film. They perfected the special effects, lost all the campiness, but still failed to make an engaging film. Director Louis Leterrier, (Incredible Hulk, Danny the Dog) needs to find a way to redeem himself after this emotionless film.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
The script is obviously the problem here, because most of the actors themselves have shown their mastery of the art in recent movies. Sam Worthington (Avatar), Liam Neeson, and Ralph Fiennes are all actors we know and love and they have shown us their capabilities in commanding performances in other films. Unfortunately, Clash of the Titans is likely something they will want to leave off their resumes.
The movie tried to have us empathize with Perseus (Worthington) and the humans in their battle against the Gods, but try as they might, little was felt for either side’s petty grievances. The film began by attempting to explain away a conflict between men and the Gods, but without any degree of detail behind this central plot-line, there was no real tension between the two sides. The characters themselves were poorly established in the beginning of the film. There is no relating to them without understanding their motives in the first place.
The movie stumbled along from subplot to subplot, without giving adequate reasons to the audience why the characters were doing what they did. It is likely obvious from the trailer that Perseus ends up fighting the Kraken, but there wasn’t any reason for him to do so. The Kraken would destroy a city, yes, but he was a prisoner of that city. What reason would he have to fight for a city that was indirectly responsible for destroying everything he loved? Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The special effects were quite stunning in 3D, but some scenes were simply edited with too many abrupt cuts and had too many awkward camera angles, making it difficult to follow the action. Unless you’re taking 3D to “James Cameron” levels of immersion, you’re probably better off getting it right in 2D. Without a compelling story, 3D is just a gimmick.
On a more positive note, the movie clocked in under two hours.
JT (287 KP) rated Don't Breathe (2016) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Building suspense is considered a difficult task. Alfred Hitchcock was a master of this. You need look no further than the shower scene in Psycho for an example of his work. When a film delivers on suspense it can sometimes take the emphasis off a predictable twist ending. If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
Don’t Breathe, directed by Fede Alvarez, follows three amatuer burglers, Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and the aptly named Money (Daniel Zovatto), who are looking for a big pay day. When they hear about a retired blind war veteran who lives alone, and who may have $300,000 in cash, the trio decide he would make easy prey – how wrong they were.
Rocky is the more cautious of the three, but having grown up in an abusive family she is looking for an escape plan and to take her sister Diddy (Emma Bercovici) to safety with her. This job is a means to an end for that scenario to happen.
If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
The opening doesn’t offer much other than setting the scene but once the doors are bolted and windows locked it’s game on. Alvarez has a solid understanding of this genre, no matter what you thought of his bloodthirsty Evil Dead remake? In the confines of this house of horrors he is able to let The Blind Man (Stephen Lang) run riot as he attempts to put a stop to the break-in.
There is a sense that Alvarez is toying with his audience, in a bid to starve off the ending. He’s having too much fun. The atmosphere is excruciatingly tense, particularly when The Blind Man levels the playing field in the basement by turning off all the lights. A neat twist in the story tries to create empathy, but it’s a little too late for that and the final act ramps up the suspense to Hitchcockian levels.
Any other person would have dropped the money and looked for a way out as quickly as possible. That is not the case here as each opportunity to escape is met with a roadblock that send the burglars back down a different path. The home invasion horror has been around for a while but done right it can be incredibly effective and in this case Don’t Breathe gets it spot on.
Don’t Breathe, directed by Fede Alvarez, follows three amatuer burglers, Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and the aptly named Money (Daniel Zovatto), who are looking for a big pay day. When they hear about a retired blind war veteran who lives alone, and who may have $300,000 in cash, the trio decide he would make easy prey – how wrong they were.
Rocky is the more cautious of the three, but having grown up in an abusive family she is looking for an escape plan and to take her sister Diddy (Emma Bercovici) to safety with her. This job is a means to an end for that scenario to happen.
If the audience leaves the screening visibly shaken then a director has done his job.
The opening doesn’t offer much other than setting the scene but once the doors are bolted and windows locked it’s game on. Alvarez has a solid understanding of this genre, no matter what you thought of his bloodthirsty Evil Dead remake? In the confines of this house of horrors he is able to let The Blind Man (Stephen Lang) run riot as he attempts to put a stop to the break-in.
There is a sense that Alvarez is toying with his audience, in a bid to starve off the ending. He’s having too much fun. The atmosphere is excruciatingly tense, particularly when The Blind Man levels the playing field in the basement by turning off all the lights. A neat twist in the story tries to create empathy, but it’s a little too late for that and the final act ramps up the suspense to Hitchcockian levels.
Any other person would have dropped the money and looked for a way out as quickly as possible. That is not the case here as each opportunity to escape is met with a roadblock that send the burglars back down a different path. The home invasion horror has been around for a while but done right it can be incredibly effective and in this case Don’t Breathe gets it spot on.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Poltergeist (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I struggle with my view of this film. Mostly because I want to compare it to the 1982 horror classic it is a remake of. But rather than pick apart how it does or does not compare to the original I realize I must judge this film on its own merit. As such, I feel this film is just…ok. Not bad, not great, just ok.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
That isn’t to say this film is not a good time. In fact, It is quite fun. I feel there are more laughs in this film than scares. Fun times indeed. Sam Rockwell and Rosemarie DeWitt play good spirited parents trying to make the best of their financial burden while moving into a new home. The three kids are the typical modern type. The older teenager concerned with her cell phone, the tech savvy son, Griffin, who seems to be sacred of everything and the “gifted” little daughter, Madison, who is innocent. The film starts lighthearted enough with jokes and everyday family squabbles. But that quickly changes as Madison starts to have conversations with her closet and the television. Yet, the only one who sees these freak events are scardy-cat Griffin, who won’t sleep in his room when there is a squirrel but doesn’t scream for his parents when he notices the electricity doing things it shouldn’t. But I digress.
And here is where the problems of this film arrive. Rather than create its own memorable scenes that sets it apart from the original, it is in such a hurry to give its own take on the classic scenes from the first film. As such, there is no real sense of rhythm to the pacing of this film that is a staple of good horror films with drawn out sense of suspense the help heighten the sense of dread. And so we are left without any real worry for our characters or us as the audience. We have a few jump scares before a long conclusion that feels more like “Classic” made for TV than big budget film.
In the end, we are left with a “popcorn” horror film that is fun but forgettable at best. Fans of the original will be disappointed. Parents who want to take their young teenage kids to their first horror film will appreciate the wholesome family feel.
Damien Echols recommended Halloween (1978) in Movies (curated)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I do not know what The Rock is for? He’s certainly not for me! I’m sure he is a lovely man in real life, but how…? Why…? is he a movie star? It baffles me. Look, there is some fun to be had with this remake, and the themes it raises are actually reasonably smart and relevant to the world of teenagers in 2020, but it is just so second rate and lazy in so many ways. I am also not a fan of Kevin Hart’s schtick. I mean, he has made me laugh maybe twice in everything I’ve ever seen him do in the last ten years. Irritating sums it up better for me. Jack Black isn’t a whole lot better; his best films are good despite him, not because of him, in the main, and when he is bad he is very very poor indeed. That leaves Karen Gillan, and yes, she saves the show here, leaving the boys look awkward, forced and quite a bit dated.
It’s basically a body swap movie, a tried and tested recipe for Japes and easy gags in a kids movie. And as so it shamelessly borrows, adapts and full on steals every previous joke, observation and trick used in every body swap film ever made. Does it do anything new? Or better? Not as far as I could see. But, then again, I am no longer ten years old, and that is very much where this is pitched. Except it annoyed me most in the patronising choices it made for the ten year old of 2020 – are they all really that dumb? Because I remember the original Jumanji managing to be fun and intelligent at the same time. It’s very possible I have it wrong because it’s me that is getting further away from what kids identify with and enjoy these days, however.
Basically, I allowed it to wash over me whilst pining for the screen presence, comedic skill and empathy of Robin Williams. Therefore I was bound to hate it. Maybe one day I’ll see it in a better mood and accept that it is perfectly fine family fare. I have certainly witnessed worse over the years – at least the sense of adventure is mostly there, the production design is competent and it is ultimately harmless. It’s just not my bag.
It’s basically a body swap movie, a tried and tested recipe for Japes and easy gags in a kids movie. And as so it shamelessly borrows, adapts and full on steals every previous joke, observation and trick used in every body swap film ever made. Does it do anything new? Or better? Not as far as I could see. But, then again, I am no longer ten years old, and that is very much where this is pitched. Except it annoyed me most in the patronising choices it made for the ten year old of 2020 – are they all really that dumb? Because I remember the original Jumanji managing to be fun and intelligent at the same time. It’s very possible I have it wrong because it’s me that is getting further away from what kids identify with and enjoy these days, however.
Basically, I allowed it to wash over me whilst pining for the screen presence, comedic skill and empathy of Robin Williams. Therefore I was bound to hate it. Maybe one day I’ll see it in a better mood and accept that it is perfectly fine family fare. I have certainly witnessed worse over the years – at least the sense of adventure is mostly there, the production design is competent and it is ultimately harmless. It’s just not my bag.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated SuperFly (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
This is a remake of Super Fly from 1972, not one I've seen, after seeing this I don't think I'll bother.
I can't say that any of the acting really stood out over the rest. It's not really my genre/subject matter, but everything did feel rather stereotypical. It was an interesting story, but for me the negatives outweighed the positives.
The style of the first and only real fight scene of the whole film was very good, if a little cheesy. It hit the spot for action but it didn't feel like any of the rest of the movie and stuck out a little for me. Perhaps because it's one of the few times we see Priest express any violence? I'm not sure.
Superfly ticks one of my top film faux pas... tailing people so close that there's no way they're not going to see you. Especially in this instance where the job basically requires you to be excessively paranoid.
At about the half way point I honestly didn't really know what was going on. I was more confused by everything than engrossed.
I don't know the ins and outs of filming techniques, but it seemed like there were a lot of different things involved in this one. As well as the fight scene early on there's a short chase scene where the footage doesn't quite seem real, it's more like game play. Whatever it was (I know you're enjoying my super technical terminology here) it stuck out like a sore thumb.
My only other observation about Superfly is Priest's relationship. Not your usual main stream thing which made a nice change... but... it really felt like it was thrown in gratuitously. I'm not being prudish here, I honestly don't mind sex scenes in films, but this one wasn't needed for the story line. It was over the top and wholly unnecessary.
What should you do?
It's not one I'd go recommending to people, but if you like drug related movies then why not give it a go. If you're more intrigued by that sex scene then I'm sure there's plenty of porn you could watch online instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll have that big pile of cash, please and thank you.
I can't say that any of the acting really stood out over the rest. It's not really my genre/subject matter, but everything did feel rather stereotypical. It was an interesting story, but for me the negatives outweighed the positives.
The style of the first and only real fight scene of the whole film was very good, if a little cheesy. It hit the spot for action but it didn't feel like any of the rest of the movie and stuck out a little for me. Perhaps because it's one of the few times we see Priest express any violence? I'm not sure.
Superfly ticks one of my top film faux pas... tailing people so close that there's no way they're not going to see you. Especially in this instance where the job basically requires you to be excessively paranoid.
At about the half way point I honestly didn't really know what was going on. I was more confused by everything than engrossed.
I don't know the ins and outs of filming techniques, but it seemed like there were a lot of different things involved in this one. As well as the fight scene early on there's a short chase scene where the footage doesn't quite seem real, it's more like game play. Whatever it was (I know you're enjoying my super technical terminology here) it stuck out like a sore thumb.
My only other observation about Superfly is Priest's relationship. Not your usual main stream thing which made a nice change... but... it really felt like it was thrown in gratuitously. I'm not being prudish here, I honestly don't mind sex scenes in films, but this one wasn't needed for the story line. It was over the top and wholly unnecessary.
What should you do?
It's not one I'd go recommending to people, but if you like drug related movies then why not give it a go. If you're more intrigued by that sex scene then I'm sure there's plenty of porn you could watch online instead.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'll have that big pile of cash, please and thank you.
Bong Mines Entertainment (15 KP) rated Suicidal Since 1995 by Ängie in Music
Jun 7, 2019
Ängie is an electric-pop singer from Stockholm, Sweden. Not too long ago, she released an explosive debut EP, entitled, “Suicidal Since 1995”.
Ängie – “Dope”
The 7-track project begins with the boomin’ lead single, “Dope”, produced by Canto. Everything about this song is dope, down to the title. Also, it’s hypnotizing frequency is so addictive that it has clocked well over a quarter of a million views on YouTube, and that’s within a month of its release.
The artist described “Dope” as a love song where she confuses love with the rush for music and drugs. In the music video, she performs among various vices including drugs, vehicles, and animals.
The second song, “Boss”, is a flirtatious ditty about foreplay in the back of a vehicle. It’s straight to the point, hot, and steamy. Also, it’s a remake of Lana Del Rey’s “You Can Be the Boss”, from the singer’s “Unreleased” album.
Not too long ago, we covered the third track, “Here For My Habits”, which is also the second single from Suicidal Since 1995.
“Here For My Habits”
On the song, Ängie talks about her sexual-invitation experiences with dealers from her past. She explains how some of them tried to hit on her, some even falling in love with her.
The fourth track, “We Run”, is a song about a drug-induced nighttime romance, perpetrated in the dark or secrecy. But when the sun comes up, the hypnotic-tranced lovers run for cover.
The fifth track, “2013”, speaks about living young, wild, and free. Also, lyrics of hiding from cops and papa indicates a certain level of paranoia due to probably smoking too much bomb weed and drinking alcoholic beverages. Then a deep thought sinks in, “18, I can’t believe where the time’s gone?”
The sixth track, “Coke Ain’t Brain”, takes the volume up another notch. The song speaks of someone being addicted to Mary Jane (marijuana) and now they’re trapped to a ball and chain with Charlie (cocaine) stuffed in their nose.
The seventh song, “Venus in Fur”, is laidback, trancey, with a backdrop made of fluffy pillows. When the singer sings, “I am tired, I am weary. I could sleep for a thousand years,” listeners might find themselves under her spell.
Overall, “Suicidal Since 1995” is a solid debut project worth listening to. It has replay value and we highly recommend adding it to your music library.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/angie-suicidal-since-1995/
Ängie – “Dope”
The 7-track project begins with the boomin’ lead single, “Dope”, produced by Canto. Everything about this song is dope, down to the title. Also, it’s hypnotizing frequency is so addictive that it has clocked well over a quarter of a million views on YouTube, and that’s within a month of its release.
The artist described “Dope” as a love song where she confuses love with the rush for music and drugs. In the music video, she performs among various vices including drugs, vehicles, and animals.
The second song, “Boss”, is a flirtatious ditty about foreplay in the back of a vehicle. It’s straight to the point, hot, and steamy. Also, it’s a remake of Lana Del Rey’s “You Can Be the Boss”, from the singer’s “Unreleased” album.
Not too long ago, we covered the third track, “Here For My Habits”, which is also the second single from Suicidal Since 1995.
“Here For My Habits”
On the song, Ängie talks about her sexual-invitation experiences with dealers from her past. She explains how some of them tried to hit on her, some even falling in love with her.
The fourth track, “We Run”, is a song about a drug-induced nighttime romance, perpetrated in the dark or secrecy. But when the sun comes up, the hypnotic-tranced lovers run for cover.
The fifth track, “2013”, speaks about living young, wild, and free. Also, lyrics of hiding from cops and papa indicates a certain level of paranoia due to probably smoking too much bomb weed and drinking alcoholic beverages. Then a deep thought sinks in, “18, I can’t believe where the time’s gone?”
The sixth track, “Coke Ain’t Brain”, takes the volume up another notch. The song speaks of someone being addicted to Mary Jane (marijuana) and now they’re trapped to a ball and chain with Charlie (cocaine) stuffed in their nose.
The seventh song, “Venus in Fur”, is laidback, trancey, with a backdrop made of fluffy pillows. When the singer sings, “I am tired, I am weary. I could sleep for a thousand years,” listeners might find themselves under her spell.
Overall, “Suicidal Since 1995” is a solid debut project worth listening to. It has replay value and we highly recommend adding it to your music library.
https://www.bongminesentertainment.com/angie-suicidal-since-1995/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Feb 28, 2018
Funny film with Intelligent humor
Heading into GAME NIGHT, I was trying to remember the last time I saw a good, funny film that did not rely on Gross-Out Humor or Sex & Fart jokes to mine it's laughs.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
No need to try to remember now, for GAME NIGHT is a very funny, mostly clean, good old-fashioned comedy where the comedy comes out of how the characters react and interact with each other as an increasingly complex and out-of-control series of events batter them from every possible angle.
Co-Directed by John Francis Daley & Jonathan Goldstein (the duo previously co-Directed the remake of VACATION in 2015), GAME NIGHT tells the story of an ultra-competitive couple, Max & Annie (Jason Bateman & Rachel McAdams) who's weekly GAME NIGHT is upended by Max' much more successful older brother, Brooks (Kyle Chandler) who promises to "up the ante" on game night by providing a "murder-mystery" type kidnapping. When real kidnappers show up and kidnap Brooks, the clueless couple - and their friends - try to solve what they think is a make believe mystery.
As Directed by Daley & Goldstein and with the subtle comedic stylings of Bateman & McAdams, this film succeeds very well in a calm, funny manner. The humorous parts of this film are viewed with kind of a sideways glance vs. the usual temptation to bash the audience over the head with it. It's as if the filmmakers and actors are relying on the intelligence of the audience to mine their humor. It was quite refreshing for me, as an audience member, to be treated with this respect. And...it was darned funny.
Joining Bateman and McAdams are Sharon Horgan, Billy Magnussen, Lamorne Morris & Kylie Bunbury as the other 2 couples competing to solve the mystery. All are funny in their own way, but Magnussen rises slightly above the rest for his take on "the dumb blonde." But, surprisingly, the person who steals the film is Jessie Plemons as Max & Annie's strange neighbor. Plemons, heretofore known to me only as a dramatic actor, plays his character with such a deadpan earnestness, that I started chuckling whenever he just showed up on the screen - a very good sign, indeed.
If you are looking for a good, funny, film (one where you would be comfortable sitting through with your spouse), then run, don't walk to GAME NIGHT, it will be well worth your time.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
P.S.: Stay through the end of the credits, it will be worth it.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Absolultion in Video Games
Jun 19, 2019
The third of a planned four content packs for Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare has arrived with Absolution. The collection was first available for the Playstation 4 system and was released for the Xbox One and PC platforms about five weeks later and contains the usual offerings of four new maps and a new chapter for the Zombie mode of the game.
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/
The maps are as follows…
Ember
This is a remake of the classic map “Resistance” From the castle lined landscape to the close-quarters fighting in rooms like gallows or a torture area this is a great map for those looking to run and gun.
Bermuda
This is a fun map based on a Shanty Town fishing village. There are locales ranging from a Fish Market to a Lighthouse and the mix of colors and action make this one really enjoyable.
Permafrost
This is a frozen landscape set in the ruins of a city. The map has several open areas where players can attack from above thanks to holes in the roof and streets. The debris strewn map offers plenty of cover but also numerous places for enemies to attack from all angles.
Fore
This is a large map that is so much fun to play. Set in a mini-golf course, players can run into the arcade, putting areas, and props to attack the enemy. There is plenty of cover and also terrain that is uneven giving a new and diverse set of challenges to players.
While the new maps are lots of fun, the main draw of the collection was the latest chapter in the Zombie mode where four aspiring actors are drawn into actual horror films by a demented Director.
The previous chapters have given us an 80s theme park, a 90s Summer Camp, and a 70s Disco Infused Martial Arts setting. This time out, Attack of the Radioactive things lets players play with and interact with Elvira in a 1950s Atomic Monster setting. The mode starts in Black and White before moving to color and even allows for a red tint Chroma mode.
Of course waves of Zombies and other terrors await and players must run and fight to survive.
This has been another winning collection for Infinite Warfare. While it does not offer anything radically new or different, it does offer plenty of fun and will increase your enjoyment of the game.
I am looking forward to seeing the final pack, around October ahead of the new Call of Duty: World War 2.
http://sknr.net/2017/08/13/call-duty-infinite-warfare-absolution-dlc/