Search
Search results
The Seduction of Curves
Allan McRobie and Helena Weightman
Book
A lavishly illustrated book that explores the language of curves that spans the human body, science,...
An Introduction to Vatican II as an Ongoing Theological Event
Book
Contemporary scholars often refer to "the event of Vatican II," but what kind of an event was it? In...
TB
Tense Bees and Shell-Shocked Crabs: Are Animals Conscious?
Book
In the seventeenth century, the famous French philosopher, Rene Descartes, held that nonhuman...
TP
The Power of God: Dynamis in Gregory of Nyssa's Trinitarian Theology
Book
Gregory of Nyssa is widely regarded as the most substantial thinker and theologian among the three...
Berlin: Portrait of a City
Book
The brave city: A photographic portrait of Berlin, 1860 to today Berlin has survived two world wars,...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
Oct 1, 2020
The second Thor movie is a visual representation of the word "meh". It has all the right ingredients, but somehow manages to fall flat.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
The general plot is an issue. It's not a terrible narrative, but it's the kind of bloated fantasy stuff you would find in an early 2000s superhero movie, not a franchise that is eight films in and includes The Avengers.
The only purpose it serves in the grand scheme of things is the introduction of another Infinity Stone. Other than that it's just stuffed with exposition and kind of bland.
Another issue is, you guess it, the villain. Malekith isn't necessarily a bad choice for the movies antagonist, but his execution feels inconsequential and boring. Christopher Eccleston does the best with what he has but the stakes never feel high with this guy, although I do enjoy his comic- accurate appearance from the halfway mark.
Visually, The Dark World looks great. The CGI is pretty decent, the locations such as Asgard are just as well realised as the first film. Returning cast members include Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Rene Russo, Kat Dennings, Idris Elba and Natalie Portman, as well as the always awesome Chris Hemsworth. Nothing wrong here, although I do feel that Lady Sif and The Warriors Three are wasted this time around.
The final set piece is pretty damn entertaining to be fair, and borders on suitable comic-book absurdity at points. The attack on Asgard by the Dark Elves is also pretty thrilling, but everything else is a little so so.
I still like Thor: The Dark World for what it's worth, it's just a little by the numbers and uninspired, and is probably my least favourite of the MCU movies to date.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Intern (2015) in Movies
Jun 6, 2018
In a word...charming
Like most of you, I did not make it to the movie theaters in September, 2015 to catch the Nancy Meyers "fish-out-of-water" comedy THE INTERN about a 70-ish man (Robert DeNiro) who goes to work at an Internet Start-up company headed by a a driven Millennial (Anne Hathaway). It seemed that this film was just going to be another Robert DeNiro phone-it-in "paycheck" comedy and not worth our time.
Boy, was I wrong.
In a word, I would call this film...charming. Hathaway is charming, the other workers and Interns at the start-up are charming and DeNiro (believe it or not) is the most charming of all.
Starring as Ben - a widower who is just withering away with inactivity and boredom who decides to go back to work - DeNiro shows he "still has it". His Ben is a strong character, as nuanced as one can be in this type of film and...yes...EXTREMELY charming. DeNiro most definitely is NOT phoning this one in - he gives it a very good effort (maybe not A+, but...) and it shows. He is on screen for almost every scene and holds our attention throughout.
Proving to be a worthy partner in this film is Anne Hathaway's driven Internet sensation, Jules. She spars with DeNiro throughout and the two make a fun pairing.
Also joining in on the fun is Rene Russo as a masseuse (and love interest for DeNiro and Andrew Rannels as Jules' ass't. But it is the trio of Adam Devine, Zack Pearlman and Jason Orley that almost steals this film as 3 knuckleheads that work with - and are mentored by - DeNiro's Yoda-like Intern. I almost would have preferred to see a film about these 4.
Nothing in this film is revolutionary or new and Director/Writer Meyers keeps it that way. It's like pulling on an old, comfortable sweater or a really well worn-in pair of shoes. It won't win any awards, but it is fun..and, yes...charming just the same.
THE INTERN is now streaming on NETFLIX and AMAZON PRIME, if you are looking for a...I'll say it one more time...charming...way to spend an evening - look no further than here.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Boy, was I wrong.
In a word, I would call this film...charming. Hathaway is charming, the other workers and Interns at the start-up are charming and DeNiro (believe it or not) is the most charming of all.
Starring as Ben - a widower who is just withering away with inactivity and boredom who decides to go back to work - DeNiro shows he "still has it". His Ben is a strong character, as nuanced as one can be in this type of film and...yes...EXTREMELY charming. DeNiro most definitely is NOT phoning this one in - he gives it a very good effort (maybe not A+, but...) and it shows. He is on screen for almost every scene and holds our attention throughout.
Proving to be a worthy partner in this film is Anne Hathaway's driven Internet sensation, Jules. She spars with DeNiro throughout and the two make a fun pairing.
Also joining in on the fun is Rene Russo as a masseuse (and love interest for DeNiro and Andrew Rannels as Jules' ass't. But it is the trio of Adam Devine, Zack Pearlman and Jason Orley that almost steals this film as 3 knuckleheads that work with - and are mentored by - DeNiro's Yoda-like Intern. I almost would have preferred to see a film about these 4.
Nothing in this film is revolutionary or new and Director/Writer Meyers keeps it that way. It's like pulling on an old, comfortable sweater or a really well worn-in pair of shoes. It won't win any awards, but it is fun..and, yes...charming just the same.
THE INTERN is now streaming on NETFLIX and AMAZON PRIME, if you are looking for a...I'll say it one more time...charming...way to spend an evening - look no further than here.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Lethal Weapon 3 (1992) in Movies
Jul 10, 2020 (Updated Jul 10, 2020)
The Perfect Trio : Mel, Danny and Joe
Lethal Weapon 3- i love the chemistry between Mel, Danny and Joe. Its the perfect trio, their bounce off of each other. The comedy is excellent. The one liners are good. The action is good, the plot is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.
The plot: Veteran police detective Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover) is only days away from retiring when he and his tough partner, Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson), are roped into an important internal affairs case. Working with the beautiful, no-nonsense Sergeant Lorna Cole (Rene Russo) and aided by the shifty informant Leo Getz (Joe Pesci), Murtaugh and Riggs begin to close in on a black-market weapons operation involving corrupt cop and arms dealer Jack Travis (Stuart Wilson).
Director Richard Donner is an animal-rights and pro-choice activist, and placed many posters and stickers for these causes in the film. Of note are the T-shirt worn by one of Murtaugh's daughters (the actress's idea), an 18-wheeler with an anti-fur slogan on the side, and a sticker on a locker in the police station.
Director Richard Donner demanded some big changes on the script which included changing the original character of Lorna (who had a different name in earlier drafts) into a woman and turning her into Riggs's girlfriend. He also re-worked the script to be less story-oriented and not focus on the main villains but instead on the relationship between Riggs and Murtaugh. He also toned down action scenes from the script and brought back Leo Getz into the story. All of his scenes were written in afterwards. In the original script Leo had left L.A. for New York. Boam had some disagreements with changes that Donner made but he was not against them. Boam was fired after he wrote his first two drafts of the script. One of the reasons for this was because Donner wasn't interested in the script and he disagreed with some parts of Boam's original draft.
Carrie Fisher was an uncredited script doctor on the film.
Several versions of a Lethal Weapon video game were released in conjunction with this sequel's release, appearing on the NES, SNES, Game Boy, Amiga, Atari ST, and Commodore 64 platforms. Also released was a Lethal Weapon 3 pinball game.
Its a funny entertaining movie, on to the last one in the franchise. I've loved the franchise so far and hopefully the 4th one is good.