Search
Tyler Fletcher (8 KP) rated Artemis Fowl (2020) in Movies
Jun 14, 2020
Character development (1 more)
Forgettable story
Another Live-Action Disney Adaption Bomb
Contains spoilers, click to show
What is it about fantasy novels that makes them so difficult to translate effectively to the silver screen? It’s not impossible – J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings adaptations are proof that it can be done. More often than not, however, the result is as limp and truncated as Kenneth Branagh’s Artemis Fowl – a few standout moments set adrift in a sea of underdeveloped characters, incomplete backstory elements, and abbreviated world building. Although the problem lies primarily in the difficulties associated with condensing an epic tale into a short-ish movie, the lack of elegance with which that is accomplished makes Artemis Fowl a failure for anyone hoping for the next great fantasy film.
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
The treatment accorded to Artemis Fowl (the movie condenses elements from the first two volumes of an eight-novel cycle into a single film) recalls a Disney misfire from more than three decades ago. Although The Black Cauldron was animated, it suffered from many of the same problems evident in Artemis Fowl: an oversimplification of the backstory, a rushed narrative with poorly realized characters, and a overall lack of faithfulness to the source material. The Black Cauldron worked better because it at least had a clean ending. Artemis Fowl suffers by trying to both provide a credible stopping point (in case there are no additional films) and offering a lead-in to additional adventures (in case there are additional films).
In the books, 12-year old Artemis (played by Ferdia Shaw, the grandson of Robert Shaw) is presented as an anti-hero (although, over the course of the saga, his villainous attributes fade to be replaced by heroic ones). Here, he’s more of a misunderstood boy-genius whose role as the protagonist is never in question. All of his edges have been smoothed out. The story focuses on Artemis’ efforts to locate and rescue his father, Artemis Fowl Sr. (Colin Farrell), an infamous art thief who has been kidnapped by the twisted evil fairy Opal Koboi. Her ransom for releasing him is that Artemis must locate and obtain a powerful McGuffin. He is joined in his efforts by Lower Elements Police (LEP) fairy police officer Holly Short (Lara McDonnell), giant dwarf Mulch Diggums (Josh Gad), and strongman Domovoi Butler (Nonso Anozie).
Artemis Fowl diverges considerably from the two books that form its basis, Artemis Fowl and Artemis Fowl and the Arctic Incident. Although author Eoin Colfer reportedly “approved” the changes, they push the film into an alternate universe from the one occupied by the novels. Even with the pruning of subplots and condensation of the narrative, 100 minutes is too short to tell the story effectively. None of the characters are well-developed, including Artemis. The boy’s relationship with Holly Short evolves with whiplash-inducing rapidity – one moment, they’re enemies (actually, she’s his prisoner), the next they’re friends. The film’s frenetic pace might work for ADD viewers and preteens but there’s no time for world-building or anything more than the most basic exposition. As a result, Artemis Fowl feels rushed to the point of being exhausting and strangely confusing despite the relatively straightforward storyline.
Kenneth Branagh was undoubtedly selected to direct the film based on his success with two earlier Disney properties: the live-action Cinderella and Marvel’s Thor. Perhaps because Branagh had no input into the screenplay (which was completed before he came on board), the movie lacks the complex psychological qualities he normally brings to his films. Visually, Artemis Fowl is impressive. However, although the fairy world of Haven is beautifully rendered, it appears all-too-briefly. The film’s most impressive sequence, a throwdown with a seemingly invincible troll, is a standout by any definition, but it represents only about five minutes of screen time and there’s nothing else that comes close – not even the muted climax.
As is often the case, Branagh’s presence at the top results in some impressive names in the cast. The young leads are newcomers – this is Ferdia Shaw’s first movie (and it shows – his performance is occasionally wooden) and Lara McDonnell’s third (she’s better, evidencing an indomitable pluckiness) – but the rest of the cast is populated with veterans. Josh Gad, another Disney regular, has the most openly comedic role of the film as Mulch Diggums. Colin Farrell is called on for limited duty as Artemis’ mostly-absent father. Nonso Anozie, who has a history with Branagh, plays Artemis’ protector and advisor. Finally, Judi Dench adds a dose of class as Holly’s no-nonsense boss.
It has taken Artemis Fowl nearly 20 years to traverse the route from page to screen and one senses that neither fans nor newcomers will be especially pleased with the end result. Recognizing that the film faced rough seas, Disney postponed the movie’s originally planned August 2019 release to May 2020 then, when the coronavirus made that impossible, the studio elected to shift the film to its Disney+ platform. Although partially a face-saving gesture (Artemis Fowl would likely have had a similar box office reception to Disney’s underwhelming 2018 release, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms), it at least allows the film to find a large audience in a low-pressure situation.
The bottom line seems to be that, while Disney has shown an aptitude for making many different kinds of movies, fantasy epics aren’t among them. This is one genre the Magic Kingdom should perhaps avoid, leaving such properties to studios that have shown better success (such as Warner Brothers). Artemis Fowl could have been the beginning of a movie franchise but, based on the first installment, it’s more likely a one-and-done outing. Disney can't quite get away from the John Carters can they?
THIS FILM IS AN EXCEPTIONAL BOMB
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Jack Reacher (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Leaping straight from the pages of author Lee Child’s long-running popular novels and short stories, the tough-as-nails Jack Reacher has arrived on the big screen as the latest starring role franchise for Tom Cruise. Although described by Child as 6’5”, 250 pounds, with blond hair, Cruise does an admirable job of bringing the no-nonsense former military investigator to life.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
For those unfamiliar with the series, Reacher first appeared in the 1997 novel Killing Floor and has appeared annually in new novels and short stories. Adapted from the tenth book, 2005’s One Shot, the film tells the story of a horrific sniper attack on the citizens of Pittsburgh. Faced with overwhelming evidence against him and being coerced into confessing to avoid the death penalty, the suspect in the shootings simply asks for them to find Jack Reacher.
This is easier said than done as after leaving the military, Reacher lives pretty much off the grid. He travels by bus, and aside from making occasional deductions from his monthly military pension, there is very little to indicate his existence since he doesn’t keep too much of the trappings of a traditional lifestyle or routine.
But thanks to a shared past with the shooting suspect, Reacher goes to the police after seeing the news reports and agrees that the evidence against the suspect is overwhelming. Reacher also admits to having past encounters with the suspect which explains his arrival as he promised that should the accused shooter ever get in trouble again, Reacher would be there to ensure that justice prevails.
At this point the accused’s attorney Helen (Rosamund Pike) enters the picture and informs Reacher that she seeks to ensure the accused gets a fair trial. A big chunk of her motivation comes from the fact that the district attorney prosecuting the case is her father. Helen believes that his perfect record is due largely to the fact that suspects get badgered into signing confessions to avoid the death penalty rather than having their day in court.
The presence of Reacher does not prove popular. The district attorney who pleads with his daughter not to use him in her case because Reacher’s credibility is highly suspect due to his unconventional existence. Undaunted Reacher does what he does best which is solving cases and in the process stirs up plenty of trouble as he quickly realizes everything is not as it seems. The supposedly open and shut case is just the tip of a much larger conspiracy in which he and Helen now find themselves squarely in the crosshairs.
The film cleverly mixes humor, action, and drama with a very credible plot that rarely strains plausibility. The characters have very clear-cut motivations and flaws and do not come across just polished and flawless cinematic heroes. Cruise keeps enough mystery about Reacher to keep the character interesting even though throughout the film I was very aware that I was watching Tom Cruise play the character rather than becoming the character.
There is some solid supporting work in film especially by Robert Duvall and writer-director Christopher McQuarrie does a great job with the pacing of the film as well as providing a framework for Cruise to do what he does best. This bodes well for the future as the duo is scheduled to team up again for “Top Gun 2”, and the next “Mission Impossible” movie.
While there are segments the film that are a little slow in the buildup, the payoff was highly satisfying if slightly Hollywood cliché-ish. Thanks to a great cast and a clever script the movie does hold your attention. I, for one, am hoping that there are further cinematic outings for Reacher in the near future.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 3 (2013) in Movies
May 10, 2019 (Updated May 10, 2019)
"i am iron man 2.0"
Marking the commencement of the second phase of Marvel Cinematic Universe after the first one culminated with The Avengers, Iron Man 3 presents a definite improvement over its insufferably insipid predecessor but it still falls short of the magical experience that was the first Iron Man film. However, it does carry a new energy & has a refreshing vibe to it, thanks to the new director at helm.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Iron Man 3 continues the story of Tony Stark who's recovering from post-traumatic stress caused by the events of The Avengers. Unable to sleep & genuinely afraid of losing what he loves, Stark's life is turned upside down after he issues a threat to a radical terrorist who retaliates by destroying his personal world, leaving him far more vulnerable than ever before & forcing him to rebuild from the scratch.
Co-written & directed by Shane Black, Iron Man 3 really benefits from a fresh perspective & is an enjoyable ride for the most part but is also marred by its attempt to try out way too many things at once, out of which only a few work out in a convincing manner. Technical aspects are finely executed for its Cinematography favours a slightly darker tone, Editing steadily paces its narrative while Brian Tyler's score adds more vibrancy to its plot.
Coming to the performances, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley & Rebecca Hall join the reprising cast & ably fill up their given roles while Robert Downey Jr. once again manages to impress the most. The best thing about this sequel is the position it puts Tony Stark in & Downey Jr. does a terrific job in bringing that vulnerability on the screen. Also, while I was a bit furious at what they did with Iron Man's arch-nemesis, I did later warm up to what their intent was here.
On an overall scale, Iron Man 3 is a solid follow up to Iron Man & you don't even have to go through the crap that was Iron Man 2 to get to this one. The film's intent to cover the darker issues at hand while keeping itself light-hearted & plenty of fun is a combination that doesn't gel so well, is at friction on many occasions & is bound to divide its viewers, but its improvement over everything that was so wrong with its predecessor nevertheless makes it a welcome chapter, if not a worthy one.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Iron Man 2 (2010) in Movies
May 9, 2019
"if you could make god bleed people would cease to believe in him"
What made Iron Man so great was its original story, exciting action, and stellar performances. But beneath all the spectacle was a heart, characters we cared about and a coherent story in which we watched a narsasistic asshole become a good guy. All of that has vanished in the rushed, noisy, but enjoyable sequel.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
Tony Stark is now living the life of a rockstar, a superhero that everyone knows the identity of, enjoying a celebrity lifestyle. Meanwhile, a villain connected to Tony's past recreates his technology and seeks revenge. Tony also deals with the mystery of his dead parents, his relationship with Pepper, wards off government attempts to control his technology, rebuffs his corporate rival, and has to rework his technology that is slowly killing him. Oh, and The Avengers show up.
If that sounds like an overcrowded movie to you, that's because it is. Iron Man 2 acts as an Iron Man sequel and an Avengers prequel. The clashing of these two stories is due to an unfocused narrative trying to cram in ten different storylines. Half the stories don't conclude in a satisfying way, and we're left with a pretty looking movie.
Luckily the performances are still great, Robert Downey Jr. is again a delight to watch, Sam Rockwell is fun as his counterpart rival, and Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as best friend Rhodes, a worthy replacement. Scarlett Johansson joins the cast as an Avengers refenerence, with very little to do other than look good and kick ass.
Jon Favreau seems much less interested in the project this time around, as he falls under the weight of the studio pushing for a sequel in two years as opposed to three. The script has a couple of witty highlights, mostly with Same Rockwell as Tony's business rival.
The action is thrilling and everything you'd want when it comes, but it doesn't show up often. The visual effects are improved, and the sound design is top notch. The score is mediocre, with a few notable exceptions.
There is too much going on for one movie, but by the end of the movie you're left wanting more. Not enough time was devoted to the different characters and plot lines, which results in a highly uneven movie with short bursts of excitement and a solid cast. Worth one watch.
JT (287 KP) rated Predators (2010) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Fans of the original Predator will no doubt have been excited to see the trailers for Predators, a script pulled from a filing cabinet in 1994 and given a 2010 make over by Robert Rodriguez, who produces, with Nimród Antal directing.
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
It was always going to be hard to top Schwarzenegger’s 1987 hit; John McTiernan had little special effects to work with but delivered an action/sci-fi masterpiece with a cast of mercenaries. When the sequel came along Schwarzenegger wanted no part of it, and so it was up to Danny Glover (I’m still getting to old for this shit) to battle on home turf, unsuccessfully in many people’s eyes.
In 2010 we’re back in the jungle only this is no ordinary jungle, this is home field advantage for the Predators. Again, a bunch of unknowns from different specially selected backgrounds are dropped in together to face a new breed of Predator, seemingly engaged in their own tribal turf war.
The story follows some similar paths to the original, macho heroes must work together to fight back, while at the same time avoid being picked off one at a time. The script is disjointed with no prior background as to why these bunch of cut throats have been pooled together, or who is behind it all.
That said those of us who can remember back as far as 1987 will enjoy a homage to the original with scenes like a spectacular waterfall jump, a Yazuka Vs Predator battle which gives us an insight as to what might have happened when Billy stayed behind on the bridge with nothing more than a huge knife for protection. All that and the immortal line “Kill me I’m here!”
Adrien Brody may not seem like your stereotypical action hero but he does do a half decent job, following along the action hero code of A) getting some serious gym time, B) lowering voice to a low growl and C) not giving a shit, then coming back and giving a shit!
The others, well they’re no Dutch, Mac, Billy or Zane but they are a new breed. There is the quiet and yet deadly Yakuza (Louis Ozawa Changchien), who is dressed for the most part in a smart grey suit and performs the sword-moves in a well choreographed human vs. Predator duel.
The rest are walking talking archetypal thugs, a Russian beef cake (Oleg Taktarov), a death row serial murderer (Walton Goggins), an African Death Squad killer (Mahershalalhashbaz Ali) and a cocaine cartel hatchet man (the legend that is Danny Trejo). There is also a rather pointless guest appearance which might lead us into a false sense of security as it is all but cut short, shame!
Ian Anderson recommended Classic FM Presents... by Alfie Boe in Music (curated)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Goldfinch (2019) in Movies
Sep 13, 2019
The life of Theodore Decker (Ansel Elgort and Oakes Fegley) is for every changed when his mother is killed in an explosion at an art museum. In the same tragic moments when his mother is killed he also makes a decision that will help shape the rest of his life, he takes a rare and valuable painting in the chaos of surrounding. This painting, The Goldfinch, wasn’t something he planned on taking, but having it will be the only thing that brings him comfort in the days ahead. After the tragedy he is temporarily placed with a family he really enjoys. He has a best friend, Andy Barbour (Ryan Foust), and a mother figure in Mrs. Barbour (Nicole Kidman). Theodore also makes a connection to a girl Pippa (Aimee Laurence and later by Ashleigh Cummings) and her caretaker Hobie (Jeffrey Wright). Pippa and her uncle Welty (Robert Joy) were standing right next to Theodore when the explosion that killed his mother happened. Welty also passes away during the explosion but not before he would influence Theodore to take the painting. Thus changing the trajectory of the rest of his life.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
This film is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning book by Donna Tartt of the same name. I have not read the book so I cannot make a comparison between the two. The director, John Crowley (Brooklyn and Closed Circuit) makes a visually beautiful film. You can tell that care was taken to make the film have a certain feel and texture. The cast is very good, including those mentioned above and Finn Wolfhard, Sarah Paulson, Aneurin Barnard and more. I particularly thought the casting of Oakes Fegley as the Young Theodore and Ansel Elgort as the adult Theodore was particularly good. The story skipped in sequence and you could see the similarity in the two actors as on character. The overall story is original and fascinating. But the film jumped around and made it feel choppy. Also the run time of two hours and twenty nine minutes somehow felt longer than that. The story moved at a snail’s pace and really seemed like it had no direction. Then in the final 10 minutes it wrapped up in a flash.
I thought overall the performances were good and the story was interesting but how it was presented really lacked. It was slow and developed in a non-compelling way. I could definitely see potential but it fell a little short for me. It did make me want to read the book and see how the author meant for the story to be told. I would recommend seeing this in a theater for the cinematography because it was beautifully shot.
The Bottle Imp
8.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
In this trick-taking game based on the short story by Robert Louis Stevenson of the same name, the...
Cardgames TricktakingGame GatewayGames
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Black Sails - Season 1 in TV
May 30, 2017
Great Cast (3 more)
Brilliant Action
Great Drama
Very Accurate (thought not 100%)
Game of Thrones with Pirates
I was unawares during my first initial viewing of this show that this was in fact a prequel of sorts to the famous classic novel by Robert Louis Stevenson, Treasure Island. Though I knew that I had heard the names Flint and John Silver among others. However, I must admit, I have never seen, nor read any adaptation of the classic (I know shameful) but I intend to as it is in my collection of books and has been for years. I collected the 'Golden Library' collection which contains nearly all of the most classic books that are must reads for any book worm, and though I do not claim to be a book worm nor a large reader of any kind, I take interest in anything to do with Pirates, Vikings, and most historical fiction.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
This show is a great representation of the life and time of Piracy however, and I can review it from a point of view of someone who knows quite a bit about the golden age of piracy in actual historical facts. Unlike the previous pirate content I reviewed, Blackbeard, this show portrays pirates as scarred, dirty, bloody, and frightening in their own way. However, similar to the Blackbeard short series, the pirates and other characters all have near perfect teeth. It seems to be that only (in what I have seen anyways) the Pirate's of the Caribbean franchise has managed to nail the full historical accuracy of the look of a pirate from clothing, to makeup, to the teeth.
On the other hand, this does not cause much of a disturbance to the viewing of this show, because the drama is brilliant, if you can bare the somewhat slow plot lines unfold as there are many characters in this show, and each have a ship full of issues that all need resolving with very few of them actually being resolved. From love interests, to thievery, betrayal and all round general opposition between old allies and acquaintances. There is a lot of 'business' to deal with on the side of Eleanor Guthrie and her dealings with our main protagonists, among other important characters, some of which are based upon historical figures such as Captain Benjamin Hornigold, Charles Vane, Anne Bonny and Jack Rackham (known throughout history as Calico Jack). All portrayed as tough, cunning and sometimes (most times for Rackham) as humerous.
The production of this show is great, with beautiful sets, great looking props and special effects that make this a believable series to get lost in. It's one of the better pirate themed mediums that I have seen, and I personally really enjoy the drama and suspense of the episodes, as well as the twists and turns of certain scenario's which leave you wanting more.
The cast deliver great performances and make you believe that they are truly men or women to be feared, and not to be double crossed. From Charles Vane's tough exterior, to Eleanor Guthrie's power over trade in Nassau, and even Captain Flint's fear inducing presence, as we watch his secrets spill out into the hands of the wrong people.
This is a show I would recommend to anyone who enjoys the theme of pirates, with some fantasy and a lot of drama, but I should warn you, that it doesn't hold back with neither the nudity or the actions performed, during the state in which someone would be naked. Whether it's the whores in the brothel, or the few short term relationships between characters.
Minor Spoilers - nothing too important.
The first example you see of this extent of mature content, as well as some of the humour of this show, is when John Silver is taken into a whore house, and is told that 'Blackbeard' wishes to see him. When he enters, he finds a woman standing there, and as John Silver points out "You are not Blackbeard" only to discover that the beard, is revealed to be between her legs.
As I said, watch at your own risk but I would recommend it to anyone interested in the theme of Pirates during the Golden Age.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Roe v. Wade (2021) in Movies
Mar 24, 2021
Tough subject matter taken head on (1 more)
'Old-pros' Voight, Davi and Guttenberg turn up
The script is clunky and unconvincing (1 more)
Some of the supporting acting roles are ropey
A controversial look at the Supreme Court legalisation of abortion in 1973
Roe v Wade was a controversial vote by the US Supreme Court in 1973 over whether abortion should be legalized across the US, following its earlier legalization in New York state.
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)
Following an early personal tragedy, Dr. Bernard Nathanson (Nick Loeb) is a leading abortion advocate, making a tidy living by performing abortions in New York. Together with writer and journalist Larry Lader (Jamie Kennedy) the pair lobby for the "Right to Choose": to legalize abortion across the country. They 'recruit' Norma McCorvey (Summer Joy Campbell), under the pseudonym of Jane Roe, to headline their case.
Against them are the 'Pro-Life' lobby headed by Dr. Mildred Jefferson (Stacey Nash) with Henry Wade (James DuMont), the district attorney for Dallas County, being the opposing plaintiff.
Positives:
- It's a brave team that put a movie together about such an emotionally charged subject, and Nick Loeb and crew should be congratulated for being brave enough to do so.
- As in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", this was subject matter from the era from the US 1960/1970's that I was completely unaware of, so I didn't know where the movie might go (no spoilers here).
- The movie plays its cards pretty close to its chest for most of the running time as regards whose 'side' it is on: pro-Life or pro-Choice. You see each team working their own corner, and the facts for and against are provided to the viewer (which Nick Loeb asserts have been thoroughly fact checked).
- The film comes to life most in some of the legal debates between Professor Robert Byrn (Joey Lawrence) and his students. These were the scenes which I enjoyed most, and Lawrence delivers one of the better acting performances in the movie.
- There's fun in seeing a lot of 'old pros' appearing in cameos as the supreme court judges: Jon Voight ("Mission Impossible"); Bond villain Robert Davi ("Licence to Kill"); Corbin Bernsen ("LA Law") and Steve Guttenberg ("3 Men and a Baby").
Negatives:
- There's no polite way to say this, but as a relatively low-budget movie, some of the supporting performances are on the decidedly ropy side.
- I wanted to see more of the legal debate between the members of the Supreme court.... but I suspect the shooting time available with these 'big name' actors was limited. That's a shame.
- This is not a "Trial of the Chicago 7", and the script is NOT by Aaron Sorkin. It generally lacks polish. And there is way too much "Oh, hello <<Insert full title and name of character here>>" which is distractingly unnatural (just use sub-titles!).
- Those familiar with my blog will know of my UTTER HATRED of voiceovers in movies! This is deployed throughout (by Nick Loeb) and irritated me enormously. More "Show".... less "Tell"!
- The movie doesn't know when to quit. There is a natural and dramatic "end point" to the story. But the movie tacks on multiple 'epilogue' scenes. Some of these are interesting and informative, showing broadcasts of the 'real-life' participants. Others are superfluous, and lessen the overall impact of the message. IMHO, it would have been better to end at the natural end-point of the story, then 'do a "Sully"' by dropping the real life photos and interviews as insets into the end-titles.
I'll sometimes put 'warnings' for sensitive viewers into my reviews. As the subject matter is abortion, then this may naturally self-deselect certain viewers. But to be clear, the movie does 'go there' in two short, almost subliminal, scenes that will almost certainly upset any parents that have been through any form of pre-natal loss. Watcher beware.
(For my full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/03/24/roe-v-wade-theres-a-fortune-in-abortion/. Thanks.)