Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inside Out (2015) in Movies
Apr 1, 2020
The Most Emotionally Resonant Pixar Film
When listing the PIXAR films that have the most emotional resonance, the films I hear mentioned most often are TOY STORY 3, WALL-E and the first 20 minutes of UP. While all of those are most definitely emotionally resonant, I would argue that INSIDE OUT is the most emotionally resonant of all the Pixar films.
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And not just because the main characters in the film are emotions.
Telling the tale of 11 year old Riley, who's life is upended when her family moves from Minnesota to San Fransico, INSIDE OUT follows this journey through the eyes of Riley's 5 chief emotions - Joy, Sadness, Anger, Disgust and Fear.
As is customary in Pixar films, the voice cast in this film is outstanding. Amy Poehler (well known as the ever-optimistic Leslie Knope in the marvelous TV Series PARKS & RECREATION) is perfectly cast as Joy. Her never ending well of optimism is perfectly placed - and never gets tiresome. As does the voice work of Lewis Black (Anger), Bill Hader (Fear) and Mindy Kahling (Disgust). They are all marvelous. But the revelation of this film for me is the voicework of Phyllis Smith (THE OFFICE) as Sadness. She brings just the right amount of weight and...well...sadness...to her character without bogging down (and bringing down) the proceedings. These 5 work together well (especially Poehler and Smith).
Special notice needs to be made of the voice work of the unique talent that is Richard Kind as the character BingBong. I will not ruin any of the surprise of this character, but I will say I could not think of any other voice for this character - he is that perfect for it.
Credit, of course, for all of this needs to be given to Director Pete Docter (currently the Chief Creative Officer at Pixar). He has shown he has the ability to really tug at the heartstrings with his previous Pixar effort, UP, and he expands on this promise in this film bringing an emotionally rich film that has many, many moments of humor spliced within. He'll be at the helm of the upcoming SOUL and I can't wait to see it.
I'm glad I revisited INSIDE OUT, it is a stronger, better film than I remembered. You'll like it - and your kids will, too!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
e-Sword LT: Bible Study to Go
Reference and Education
App
e-Sword® — the world's most popular PC Bible study software is now available on the world's most...
JT (287 KP) rated The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Edward Norton [SPOILER ALERT] raised a smirk at the end of Primal Fear to reveal himself as a sick and twisted killer it capped a sublime performance from an actor that would go on to do bigger and better things.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
Primal Fear was a courtroom thriller that held you all the way to the bitter end, and as that solemn expression washed over poor Richard Gere‘s face at the end you could only stand up and applaud.
The Lincoln Lawyer travels down a similar premise, but despite all the twists and turns in a plot based on the novel by Michael Connelly it fails to keep the tension high enough to satisfy us to a pay off that is only blip on the thriller spectrum, I personally wanted something bigger.
Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone whose comfortable in this type of atmosphere
McConaughey plays Mick Haller a defence attourney working out the back of his sleak looking black Lincoln, and whose job it is to pretty much keep the scum of the earth on the streets, something which has obviously damaged his marraige with Maggie McPherson (Tomei). His reputation though is flipped over mid way through and we suddenly get an insight into a man that is as much a doting father as he is a great defence attorney.
Well alright, alright, alright!
When he’s asked to defend rich boy Louis Roulet (Phillippe) for beating a prostitute to within an inch of her life he suddenly gets a conscience when he realizes that the clean cut image might be a façade to something much more sinister. The film itself is not bad at all, and in parts it’s actually very good with McConaughey calling on his supporting cast for help which includes John Leguizamo and William H. Macy.
McConaughey’s court presence is smooth and charismatic, which would probably make him quite a good litigator in the real world. Maybe you’re seduced by his Texan drawl or his searing good looks, either way its a solid performance from someone who’s comfortable in this type of atmosphere.
Phillippe is certainly no Norton, and you know right off the bat that he’s as guilty as hell but its a good turn from him nonetheless. As thrillers go its up there and is thoroughly enjoyable, most notably for McConaughey’s performance which is a role that has been a long time coming for him, and one that he nails right to the court room wall.
The Gourmands’ Way: Six Americans in Paris and the Birth of a New Gastronomy
Book
“In The Gourmands’ Way, Justin Spring brilliantly recounts the French odyssey of six remarkable...
Biography food
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Travels with My Harp: The Complete Autobiography
Book
Mary O'Hara's life story is something only the most inspired press agent could ever hope to concoct'...
Into the Wind: My Six-Month Journey Wandering the World for Life's Purpose
Book
Without a map, nineteen-year-old Jake Ducey leaves behind a drug-filled life and college basketball...
Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded
Games
App
It’s not just the funniest game you've ever played… …it’s also the most infamous video game...
Clarity: Clear Mind, Better Performance, Bigger Results
Book
LEARN TO CLEAR YOUR MIND AND THINK LIKE A WINNER We all have so much going on. A million different...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Eternals (2021) in Movies
Nov 10, 2021
Works Well Enough
The interesting thing about creating a Cinematic “Universe” (like Marvel has done and others are desperately trying to do) is that because it is a “Universe” you can tell different types of stories with different types of characters in differing styles.
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In ETERNALS, Marvel has really attempted to open up their “Universe” by introducing their audience to the Eternals, celestial beings that are tangentially interested in the goings-on of the human world.
It’s not a Super-Hero movie, per se, it’s a world of “Gods and Monsters” (to steal a phrase) that has repercussions across the Universe.
So with this background in mind, the ETERNALS succeeds, mostly, because it is trying to be something…else. NOT a SUPERHERO film, but something on a different plane.
Unfortunately, this probably will put off “Fan-boys” who want “more of the same” (more Avengers, more Thanos, more F/X smashy-smashy, fight-fight) and ETERNALS just isn’t intended to be that.
Your first clue that this film is trying to be something else is the choice of Director - recent Oscar Winner Chloe Zhao (NOMADLAND), known for her personal stories and interesting visuals. She brings that sensibility to this film and it (mostly), though it is the type of Cinematic style that works best in low-res (like an independent film like Nomadland) rather than large IMAX Comic-book film event films.
The movie itself is entertaining…enough. It is, necessarily, slow at the beginning as Zhao needs to set up these characters and the realm that they are playing on (and orient the audience as to how this fits with the AVENGERS:ENDGAME of it all). There are 10 (yes, TEN) Eternals to introduce along with ancillary characters, so the film has to take some time to gather steam.
And…it gathers steam, not in the action sequences (which are serviceable) but in the characters and the character interactions and this is where the film really works for me.
Gemma Chan (CRAZY, RICH ASIANS) and Richard Madden (Rob Stark on GAME OF THRONES) are, basically, the lead characters as their relationship takes center stage for most of the film - and these 2 (especially Chan) holds the screen well, which is tough to do since there are so many characters - and so much other things going on.
The real hero of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, IMHO, is the Casting Director who, time-after-time, plucks relative unknowns and throws them into parts that they are perfectly cast for…Salma Hayak (leader of Eternals, Ajak), Lia McHugh (Sprite), Brian Tyree Henry (Phastos), Lauren Ridloff (Makkari) and Barry Keoghan (Druig) all fit their parts well, with the relationship between Makkari and Druig being particularly interesting.
Speaking of interesting relationships, Ma Dong-seok (so good in the Korean Zombie flick TRAIN TO BUSAN) as Gilgamesh almost steals the screen from MOVIE STAR Angelina Jolie’s Thena…almost. Jolie is a MOVIE STAR that just walks onto the screen and commands your attention - and she is perfectly cast as Thena. It is a very smart use of her talents…and her personae as a MOVIE STAR and works very well.
Finally, it took awhile for the film to figure out what to do with Kumail Nanjiani’s character of Kingo (and Nanjiani’s tremendous comedic talents), but, eventually, they do figure it out - but not entirely - which is really the problem with this film. It ALMOST figures out the formula to make this huge, broad, galactic film very personal, but doesn’t quite get there.
I liked, but didn’t LOVE, ETERNALS. I applaud what this film tries to do and I am fine with where it went and was entertained by it. If this is the first part of a journey, then I am anxious to see where ETERNALS goes from here. If this is a “one-off” film, then it doesn’t, quite, work well enough.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)