Search
Search results
Steph Freeman (26 KP) rated Altered Carbon in TV
Feb 19, 2018
Excellent character development (2 more)
Phenomenal special effects
Edge of your seat action throughout the plot line, never felt the story lagging.
Phenomenal Show
Contains spoilers, click to show
In this age of technology I am rarely singularly glued to the television when a show is playing; I'm playing Candy Crush, surfing Etsy, creating new glassware designs... From the moment Takeshi Kovacs is apprehended from the Protectorate until the very last scene of the series this show had me glued to the screen. It combines the "locked room" mystery Agatha Christie made famous with a sci-fi Game of Thrones feel that evokes the Red Rising trilogy sense of Golds vs. Reds.
The lack of regard for anyone below them (literally as well as figuratively) makes it easy to hate the Meths and the decadence that surrounds them. Their wealth allows a god-like immortality, and a lack of respect for life and "real death". Kovacs was detained for crimes against the Protectorate and his stack placed "on ice" for 250 years until the meth Laurens Bancroft pays for his release and a new skin. As Kovacs accepts the offer to find Bancrofts murder, and as he searches for the killer he finds friendship in an AI Edgar Allen Poe (one of the best characters in the whole show), a former military drunk and his wife and daughter, who is damaged emotionally trapped in virtual life, and a police officer. There are also several people after Elias Ryker (a police officer who was a little too curious), which causes issue for Kovacs because that is the skin Bancroft selected when he was taken off ice.
The locked room mystery portion of the season ends in episode 7, but that is far from the end of the action. As we learn more about Kovacs' history his interest in the Envoy mission of recapturing humanity and forcing real death on the world is made more evident, as is his love for Quell. His sister, Rei, did not believe in the mission as much as spending eternity with her big brother. While Kovacs was on ice his sister built a meth empire, acquiring wealth and power, becoming everything Quell and Kovacs fought against. The final moments with his sister, and his decision to find Quell's stack were gripping.
The cinematography, costuming, and CGI in this show are phenomenal, and the attention to detail is obvious. As Netflix is transitioning to big budget productions it's clear they have the right people handling the decisions. I didn't realize this series was also a book trilogy written by Richard Morgan, this series has definitely peaked my interest and I will be reading the books before the next season drops.
The lack of regard for anyone below them (literally as well as figuratively) makes it easy to hate the Meths and the decadence that surrounds them. Their wealth allows a god-like immortality, and a lack of respect for life and "real death". Kovacs was detained for crimes against the Protectorate and his stack placed "on ice" for 250 years until the meth Laurens Bancroft pays for his release and a new skin. As Kovacs accepts the offer to find Bancrofts murder, and as he searches for the killer he finds friendship in an AI Edgar Allen Poe (one of the best characters in the whole show), a former military drunk and his wife and daughter, who is damaged emotionally trapped in virtual life, and a police officer. There are also several people after Elias Ryker (a police officer who was a little too curious), which causes issue for Kovacs because that is the skin Bancroft selected when he was taken off ice.
The locked room mystery portion of the season ends in episode 7, but that is far from the end of the action. As we learn more about Kovacs' history his interest in the Envoy mission of recapturing humanity and forcing real death on the world is made more evident, as is his love for Quell. His sister, Rei, did not believe in the mission as much as spending eternity with her big brother. While Kovacs was on ice his sister built a meth empire, acquiring wealth and power, becoming everything Quell and Kovacs fought against. The final moments with his sister, and his decision to find Quell's stack were gripping.
The cinematography, costuming, and CGI in this show are phenomenal, and the attention to detail is obvious. As Netflix is transitioning to big budget productions it's clear they have the right people handling the decisions. I didn't realize this series was also a book trilogy written by Richard Morgan, this series has definitely peaked my interest and I will be reading the books before the next season drops.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Harlem Nights (1989) in Movies
Feb 1, 2020
A Movie Packed With Entertainment
Harlem Nights getting a 21% on Rotten Tomatoes really leaves me scratching my head. Apparently I’m not the only one as the Audience Score is an overwhelming 80%. Critics (and I include myself in this) don’t always get it right and this is definitely one of those instances. The Story: Two black clubowners in 1930’s Harlem have to outsmart gangsters and corrupt police officers when they try to muscle in on their business.
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
Acting: 10
Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor are comedic legends and they work so well together in this movie. Murphy plays Quick, a flashy hot-head who carries scenes with sheer charm. Pryor’s role as Sugar Ray sees him take more of a fatherly approach. His voice of reason provides a sweet balance to all the chaos going on. Outside of these two, the supporting cast is filled with amazing performances from the likes of actors like Redd Foxx and Della Reese.
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes are not only hilarious but get you quickly involved in the story. We get to see how Quick and Sugar Ray meet and the crazy circumstance that brought them together. Great setup that perfectly tees up the rest of the movie.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 7
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 7
While I can’t put it in the category of All-Time Great, it’s still damn good. It’s the kind of movie with serious replay value. It gives you something to cheer for and plenty of things to laugh about.
Memorability: 8
One of my favorite all-time scenes for film happens in this movie when Quick faces off against Della Reese’s character Vera in an alley. All hell breaks loose when a big toe gets shot. It’s moments like this that adds a magic to this movie you just can’t get anywhere else. It reminds me why I love movies.
Pace: 10
Plot: 7
The story has some holes and relies on a couple of shortcuts to get through, but nothing too damning to impact the overall solidity of the movie. For the most part it works. I appreciated its originality, specifically with putting black characters in such a prominent position during that time period. Nice touch.
Resolution: 7
Not a perfect wrapping of the story, but feels complete nonetheless. I was definitely satisfied. A little bit more closure and I probably would have scored higher.
Overall: 86
If I’m being honest, I think critics sometimes suffer with trying to fit in. Desperately seeking approval from their peers, they produce like reviews that are not a fair indication of a movie’s actual quality.Damn the critics, Harlem Nights is an awesome movie and, if you haven’t checked it out, give it a shot!
JT (287 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
What happens if you took a bunch of stereotypical and archetypal teenagers into the woods and let them party in a small cabin? In the eyes of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard quite a bit it seems.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.
The college jock, the stoner, the virgin, the geek and the whore (or slut) are all grouped together ready to be ripped apart by a wide variety of insanely bonkers creatures.
A so called ‘love letter to horror’ Cabin in the Woods encapsulates everything we have ever seen in horror films over there years, and for any fan of the genre its what we all love to see.
What makes this film particularly special and something that sets it apart from all other horror films is apparent in the opening few minutes.
Deep in what seems to be a scientific layer, Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford) discuss and mull over the mundane as they make their way to a control centre ready for the days events to unfold. Just another day at the office then?
Meanwhile, the travelling party are making their way to the cabin, and after we see a bird of prey fly into what looks like a force field we known this isn’t going to be your normal run of the mill horror.
OK, move it a little to the right!
In one word its the Truman show with massive amounts of blood, which might be giving too much away for those that haven’t even seen it yet. The film has several nods to a number of past Hollywood horror greats such as Hellraiser and Evil Dead, and carries with it every cliche the genre has to offer.
Whedon’s popularity as a director is high, here though he keeps himself to writing duties only as Goddard gets the gig behind the camera in his first feature. It’s a thoroughly entertaining film, but you need to take it with a pinch of salt and remind yourself that this is a homage to horror with Hostel like tendencies.
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed
It’s all balanced neatly with black comedy and has an a final 20 minutes which really has to been seen to be believed, with a great cameo thrown in for good measure. I loved every minute of this from start to finish, and it’s a film that doesn’t try and take itself too seriously.
It’s not going to sit with everyone, but for those true horror fans who have watched parties of teenagers getting picked off one by one in a creative way each time it will be one horror film they won’t forget in a hurry.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Last House on the Left (1972) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020
To Avoid Fainting Keep Repeating...Its Only A Movie
The Last House on the Left- was wes's directoral debut and what a start. Its a disturbing, psychological, graphic, exploitation horror film.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
The plot: Teenagers Mari (Sandra Cassel) and Phyllis (Lucy Grantham) head to the city for a concert, then afterward go looking for drugs. Instead, they find a gang of escaped convicts who subject them to a night of torture and rape. The gang then kills the girls in the woods, not realizing they're near Mari's house. When they pose as salesmen and are taken in by Mari's mother (Cynthia Carr) and father (Gaylord St. James), it doesn't take the parents long to figure out their identities and plot revenge.
Wes Craven, who had no money at the time, was put on the job of synchronizing dailies for Cunningham's re-shoot. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham. He soon began editing the film with Cunningham and they became good friends. Hallmark bought the film for $10,000, and it was considered a "hit"; this prompted Hallmark to persuade them to make another film with a bigger budget, and gave them $90,000 to shoot a horror film.
This script, written under the title Night of Vengeance, has never been released; only a brief glimpse is visible in the featurette Celluloid Crime of the Century (a 2003 documentary on the making of the film).
The majority of the cast of The Last House on the Left were inexperienced or first-time actors, with the exception of Richard Towers, Eleanor Shaw, and Sandra Peabody who were all soap opera regulars and had prior film roles.
The film underwent multiple title changes, with its investors initially titling it Sex Crime of the Century. However, after test screenings were completed, it was decided to change the title to Krug and Company; however, this title was found to have little draw during test screenings. A marketing specialist who was an acquaintance of Cunningham's proposed the title The Last House on the Left. Craven initially thought the title was "terrible."
Due to its graphic content, the film sparked protests from the public throughout the fall of 1972 who called for its removal from local theaters.
Promotional material capitalized on the film's graphic content and divisive reception, featuring the tagline: "To avoid fainting, keep repeating 'It's only a movie' ..." advertising campaign. Under the Last House... title, the film proved to be a hit.
Though the film passed with an R-rating by the Motion Picture Association of America, director Craven claimed that on several occasions, horrified audience members would demand that theater projectionists destroy the footage, sometimes stealing the film themselves.
It is a distubing film but it is a excellet film by a horror icon.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Crisis (2021) in Movies
Feb 19, 2021
Worth it just for Oldman
Crisis is a 2021 film from write, director and producer Nicholas Jarecki, who previously brought us 2012's Arbitrage starring Richard Gere. Crisis is a story about drugs, namely opioids, and follows three separate yet related narratives about opioids and their impact on US society. There's an undercover DEA agent posing as a drug trafficker arranging a Fentanyl smuggling operation between Canada and the US (Armie Hammer), a recovering addict architect determined to track down those responsible for her son's involvement in narcotics (Evangeline Lilly), and a university professor (Gary Oldman) who's research laboratory uncovers dangerous revelations about a new drug that they've been paid to research by a very influential drug company and their executives (Luke Evans).
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
The main purpose of Crisis appears to be highlighting two entirely juxtaposed real life issues with opioids - the illegal smuggling and import of street drugs and the completely legal yet questionable drugs introduced by drug companies with full support of the government. For most, neither of these stories should be particularly surprising as they're fairly common knowledge and have been featured in countless films and documentaries over the years, although I think this may be the first time the two stories have been shown together in a film. And for Crisis this really works - showing the two contrasting issues makes for a more interesting and unique story rather than concentrating solely on one that we've seen many times before, especially as its split into three separate narratives.
However, the problem with Crisis is that not all of the narratives are as engaging as intended. Evangeline Lilly puts in a wonderful and emotional performance as architect and mother Claire, but her narrative becomes a little unrealistic as she becomes bent on revenge at those responsible for involving her son in the drugs underworld. And unfortunately Armie Hammer's narrative as undercover federal agent Jake is nothing original, with a smuggling operation and drugs bust that we've seen in many other films, some of which I'm afraid have done it a lot better. The most interesting narrative though is that of Gary Oldman as Dr Tyrone Brower, whose struggle over whether to tell the truth about a new dangerous drug or take the money from his drug company employers is a surprisingly thrilling morality tale. It's helped by a superb turn from Oldman himself and a wonderful supporting role from Greg Kinnear (who I've adored since 1997's As Good As It Gets), and the verbal sparring scenes between Brower and Kinnear's university Dean are probably the best in the film. It's a shame however that Luke Evans isn't given as much to do with his part in this narrative, even with his questionable American accent.
The biggest problem I had with all of the narratives is that unlike similar films that intertwine related narratives that eventually intersect dramatically (think 2006's Best Picture Oscar winner Crash), the narratives here don't all come together in the way I was expecting, which was rather disappointing.
Cinematography-wise, director and writer Jarecki does a good job as the film looks and feels good, and really highlights the US and Canadian settings. The soundtrack only adds to the overall tense and suspenseful feel of the film, although it does feature the typical pulsing, drum beat style that seems to be standard for a modern thriller. And the script, while possibly a little clichéd especially around the drugs bust and smuggling, is good and with his supporting acting role as Jake's fellow DEA agent Stan, Nicholas Jarecki could be one to watch in future.
Overall, Crisis is a good thriller that tells the story of well-known drug issues in a different way and does well in highlighting real life concerns. For the most part it succeeds in bringing an interesting set of narratives together for a fairly gripping albeit slightly long film, and despite my preconceptions about how its intersecting storylines should play out, it is an enjoyable watch, although for the most part thanks to the talents of Gary Oldman.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated How Hard Can It Be? in Books
Mar 10, 2019 (Updated Mar 10, 2019)
Things have taken a bit of a turn for Kate Reddy--she's nearing 50, her husband has lost his job and spends most of his time cycling, and her kids are busy teenagers. With Richard out of work, Kate has to return to work. However, she finds that the financial community isn't welcoming to a woman on the cusp of fifty. When Kate decides to pretend she's seven years younger to enter the working world, she winds up working at the hedge fund she originally started. Once back at work, though, she finds herself overwhelmed dealing with everything: the unhelpful husband, the ungrateful kids, the demanding colleagues, and an unexpected appearance from an old flame.
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This was a tough one for me. It was a slow read, although in its defense, I read it during a very busy time at work. I empathized with Kate's return to working motherhood--especially juggling kids and work and dealing with a male-driven workplace. I didn't enjoy the intense focus on how old Kate was, making her seem nearly decrepit at fifty. It's one thing to deal with turning the big 5-0 and its ramifications, but its another to make it seem like it's the end of the world. Even worse, while Kate could seem so strong in the workplace, she was such a pushover with her children. She was supposedly clueless with technology, unable to keep up with their exploits, and a complete doormat. (I also couldn't handle the endless endearments she used with her kids--there's only so many "sweeties" and "darlings" I can take.)
There are certainly humorous moments in the novel. This is a sequel to Pearson's first novel featuring Reddy and the parts I enjoyed here were the parts I liked about the first one: Kate's wit, her ability to take on the "big boys" at her fund, and the snippets of emails between her and her friend, Candy. There were definitely pieces of the novel that I found myself nodding along with--her moments of anxiety; her rants about how working moms are treated; some insights into kids and the social media era, etc. And Kate certainly doesn't have an easy go of it, with her clueless husband, helpless kids, crumbling house, aging parents, and stressful job.
That being said, I could see most of the plot twists coming a mile away, and you couldn't help but get frustrated that Kate couldn't see them too. Overall, while I found parts of this novel funny, refreshing, and quite apropos, I couldn't really get over Kate's obsession with her looks or her one-sided relationship with her children. In the end my rating is probably bumped up a bit for a little Kate Reddy nostalgia.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Blind in Books
Jun 6, 2019
^^ When Sam James, a highly regarded psychologist at a notorious psychological institute, meets disturbed patient Richard, their lives take an unexpected turn as the lines between sane and sanity blur between them.
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
^^ As a psychological thriller this story’s different. I’m not sure ANY book will beat ‘One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest’, (which this one was compared to), but it’s still a terrific read in many ways.
^^ For a psychologist who is supposed to have her head screwed on right helping patients with their mental health problems, she has a hell of a lot of her own issues to deal with. Sam’s in an unhealthy, abusive relationship, had an unpleasant upbringing and is on the verge of becoming a full-blown alcoholic. On top of all that, she’s overloaded with cases, as all the staff are, underpaid and at risk of losing her job.
^^ Hang on! This sounds very much like the kind of things real healthcare professionals deal with! Especially when it comes to lack of funding, high staff turnover and a never-ending influx of new patients all suffering and needing help. (Can you tell I once worked in a similar healthcare environment?) It’s no wonder we can watch Sam’s health and mental stability decline before our very eyes. Not only that, she digs herself deeper into trouble making awful decisions, putting both herself and her patients at risk.
^^ What niggled me was I guessed what was going to happen quite early on. Is this only me? Or maybe, since I worked in a similar place, I saw the signs sooner? Who knows. Despite this, I still enjoyed the read, but found myself getting a little frustrated towards the end when neither Sam, nor her friend and coworker, David, could see what was happening. I guess you could say it really was ‘The blind leading the blind’.
^^ It’s a pity guessing what was about to happen, for ages, spoilt the shock ending of the last two sentences, which finally gave the game away to anyone who hadn’t already guessed. But hey, ho!
^^ I found this started off, slow, albeit in a curious way, like watching a candle burning at both ends. Then it hit the ground running midway, and by the last third I was staying up far too late at night wanting to read ‘just one more page’. Watching Sam’s life and sanity unravelling, was strangely intriguing.
Overall: For those with an interest in stories which openly talk about mental health issues, I think you’ll really enjoy this. The author shows a deep understanding of the healthcare industry and it’s clear she knows her stuff. She should do. A.F. Brady is a New York State Licensed Mental Health Counselor/Psychotherapist. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Brown University and two Masters degrees in Psychological Counseling from Columbia University. That’s why!
Scott Tostik (389 KP) rated 3 From Hell (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Some things are better left alone.
Contains spoilers, click to show
I'm gonna go on record and say this first...
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.
The movie business lost one of the greatest talents it had ever seen when Sid Haig passed away. I just wanted to say thank you to him for, not only the horror nemories, but for all the amazing characters he played over the past 60 years. Now, let the final curtain close on a phenomenal career.
Okay, now that thats over, lets review this shit show.
Rob fucking Zombie... Have I got a bone to pick with you.
Have you ever heard the saying "he went to the well too many times,"?
Such as the case woth this final installment of the Firefly films.
There was no chemisty between Bill Moseley and Richard Brake... Maybe a little... It flashed through here and there, but it never came to pass.
Sherri Moon Zombie floats along as a calmer more....medicated Baby. But she just doesnt seem to be in to it like she was previously.
Before people get on me about Zombie, I am a fan. I love his music, movies and artwork. I have always been oneof his biggest supporters. When he "destroyed" Halloween. I was there, sticking up for him until my ears bled. When people said Lords of Salem was a shitty art house movie... I was there... Holding my banner high saying "Everyone makes an art flick once in a while... Hell, Argento made a career of it. When 31 came a long... I painted my face white and punched myself til i bled out my nose and mouth... Metaphorically of course... Im not certifiable...
My point is I have stuck up for R0b Zombie for most of his directing and writing lifetime... But I can no longer do so.
This movie fell a part not too long after it started. From Otis walking the ramps of courthouses and jails spouting off lime Manson... Too Baby appearing to be more off her rocker than usual, reminding me of Aileen Wournos...
Seeing Captain Spaulding for the brief few minutes made the film worth it for me. Listening to Baby and Otis talk about him in the 2nd act nearly brought the waterfalls from the eyes... But i refrained.
Here we have a movie that could've been something special had it been made 10 years ago.
I am saddened not only by the passing of Mr. Haig, but that this movie was a let down... It had its moments of over the top gore and killer dialogue. And it has a scene that will forever be engrained in my brain. But I just can't give it apassing grade.
Never fear Mr. Zombie, I still have your back... Abd I always will. But this time I'm standing in front of you... Telling you, honestly, I didn't like it.