Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Chernobyl Diaries (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
What do you get when you pair the director of “Paranormal Activity” with a handful of unknown actors, a one-hit wonder soap-star-turned-singer, and a plot based upon the Chernobyl meltdown? You guessed it: a sub-par suspense film with a poorly executed ending.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
Meet Chris, Amanda, and Natalie – a trio of pretty Americans touring Europe and en route to Russia to meet Chris’ older brother, Paul, in Minsk. Unbeknownst to Amanda, Chris confides in his older brother his plan to propose to her upon their arrival in Moscow, their next destination. However, Paul decides to intervene and proposes a new plan: an extreme tourism excursion in the abandoned city of Pripyat, just outside of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Despite Chris’ pleas, the group decides to take up Paul’s offer and embark the next day to Chernobyl/Pripyat under the guide of Uri, an ex-Soviet Special Forces agent.
Piling into an assault-van of sorts and accompanied by a pair of last minute travelers – an Aussie named Mike and his blonde Norse girlfriend, Zoe – they set off on the 2-hour drive to Pripyat. However, it is upon arrival at their destination that they find the area restricted to tourists by the Soviet guard. Undaunted, Uri drives the van to another remote access point, stealing them into the abandoned city of Pripyat for their excursion. It is there, as one can imagine, that some unknown element intercedes and prevents them from leaving the city. Somehow wires to the van’s starter are cut and they are forced to stay overnight. It’s at this point, as you can imagine, the horror movie element sets in and the typical suspense-film-plot takes over.
Of course, people leave the van to investigate “strange noises” and, of course, they are picked off one by one. As the movie progresses and the horror-film starts to settle in, the plot unravels and you’re ultimately left with one of the lamest endings conceived. Basically, you’ve had almost two hour’s worth of build-up and suspense for absolutely nothing.
Suspense-wise, you’re definitely going to jump here and there; my poor date had to suffer through my grabbing his hand and leg on more than one occasion. Acting wise, there’s nothing substantial. Jesse McCartney draws upon his experience as a soap actor for the more emotional role and Devin Kelley who plays Amanda seems more adept at sticking out her chest than acting her way out of a bag. But I digress, horror movies aren’t exactly based on strong acting skills, right?
If you’re looking for a good suspense film, something that gives you an excuse to grab your date’s hand or squeal like a girl, then this is a good film for that. If you’re looking for something twisted, something akin to “The Hills Have Eyes” or “Silent Hill,” then this falls rather short in comparison. The director had so many opportunities to delve further into the Chernobyl mystery and play up the radiation/mutation stab, but failed to provide any substance behind his direction. For my taste, there were too many unanswered questions and vague allusions for me to be wholly impressed with the movie. The premise had a lot of potential and promise but honestly failed to deliver.
AJIO Online Shopping App
Shopping and Lifestyle
App
WELCOME TO YOUR ONLINE AISLE OF STYLE We know what fashion means to you, and how much you love the...
NCLEX Test Bank 5500 Notes & Quiz (Nursing)
Education and Medical
App
GET 4 apps for the price of 1. For the seek of Knowledge sharing & in order to give our learners a...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Marnie (1964) in Movies
Nov 6, 2020
Mediocre Hitchcock - but still pretty good
Heading into 1964, Alfred Hitchcock was on quite a roll. He had just rolled out - in order, VERTIGO (1958), NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959), PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963) and his anthology series ALFRED HITCHCOCK PRESENTS had made him into a household name throughout the world. So it was with great anticipation/expectation that the world awaited his next major motion picture.
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And while this film, MARNIE was not the critical or commercial success of his previous outings, it still has enough good in it that makes it a worthwhile film to watch.
Starring Tippi Hedren (THE BIRDS) and Sean Connery (fresh off his James Bond success in DR. NO and FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE), MARNIE is, basically, a "two-hander" (a film that is primarily focused on conversation between 2 people) about an habitual thief, Marnie, with deep psychological troubles who is loved (and handled) by a man who is seeking to get to the root of what makes her tick.
And..in someone else's hands..this film could have been overly melodramatic, but in Hitchcock's adroit hands, it is a deep and disturbing psychological thriller that succeeds more often than it doesn't.
Starting with what works, Hitchcock's Direction (obviously) is at the fore. He knows how to play out a moment - especially a scene where Marnie steals from a safe. Hitchcock locks the camera in place and plays the scene with no music and just letting the events play out. It is a typical suspenseful Hitchcock scene and very well done.
The other thing that works is the performance of Connery. His charm and screen charisma shines brightly. making a problematic character like the one Connery portrays seemingly benign. Also...Tippi Hedren's performance at the end of this movie almost rescues her character...almost.
What doesn't work? Well...let's start with the title character, Marnie, as played by Hedren. She just doesn't have the charisma and charm of Connery and never really brings her character to life. She overacts at times when she has one of her "episodes" (I would think that both Hitchcock and Hedren share the blame for this) it is almost laughable in it's over-acting and she just seems in over her head with this role. It is said that Hitchcock had the film and role of Marnie written specifically as a comeback vehicle for Grace Kelly. It is too bad that this didn't come to pass, as I would have LOVED to see what an actress of her caliber would have done with this role.
The other thing that doesn't really work for me is the 2 characters at the forefront of this film. Both Hedren's Marnie and Connery's Mark Rutland are not likeable (though, as I said earlier, Connery's charm and charisma rescue's the Rutland character), but neither of these characters are ones that us, the audience, particularly care for - and that is a problem with a film that is pretty much focused on these characters.
Not one of Hitchcock's best...but still good...and the ending almost makes up for the weaknesses of the earlier parts of the movie.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - even mediocre Hitchcock is till pretty good.
And...you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Thirteen Days (2000) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Verdict: History Lesson
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Story: Thirteen Days starts like a normal day in the Kennedy administration, his assistant Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) joins the President John F Kennedy (Greenwood), his brother Robert F Kennedy (Culp) and advisers from every side for an emergency meeting.
The meeting is called to discuss the appearance of nuclear warheads in Cuba, believing Russia are moving to a closer position which could destroy large parts of America in minutes. What follows in Kenny trying to help JFK make the smartest decision, despite how many different people are advising with multiply options, all leading to one of the most intense stand offs in military history.
Thoughts on Thirteen Days
Characters – Kenny O’Donnell is the assistant advisor to the President, he gives him advice which would see him make decisions which would support the image of the President and the country instead of agree with the fast track answers which would see America go to war, he is the man that people turn to if they are not prepared to challenge the President’s decisions. President John F Kennedy is the man in the middle of the situation, the man that needs to make the final decision after taking on all the advice from his experts, he wants to remain in control of the situation to the best of his ability. Robert F Kennedy is one of the men advising his brother, he knows how John thinks and knows how the help him make the right decisions to remain calm and in control. We do have plenty of different advisors who are trying to offer a plan to what could make this stand off end quicker.
Performances – Kevin Costner is always entertaining to watch in a political movie, this is no different as he plays the pivot to everything going on. Bruce Greenwood as the President is great to watch through the film, with the whole cast looking like they would have been the people they are playing.
Story – The story here follows the events around the Cuba Mission Crisis, from the point of view of the Americans. This does break down to be a political thriller that does keep us on edge as we see all the potential ideas that were thrown out which could have seen the world in a different place if different outcomes had been used, while this is a 2 hour story, we only focus on the different ideas, which is interesting to see. Each person could have their own agenda which could show the mindset of the public during the events. We could have more intense moments, but it just doesn’t really do that much more, which doesn’t display just how dangerous the event could have been.
History – This is a big historical moment and it does show how the people in power were put on panic station when the events started to unfold.
Settings – The film uses the political settings for the most part, which does show us just how the people stayed together through the events of the crisis.
Scene of the Movie – Putting the Admiral in his place.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We could have had more intense sequences.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting look at one of the biggest stand offs in modern history, we do see how it could have gone very differently and how everything unfolded.
Overall: Interesting look at history.
Office Reader Pro: For Microsoft Office
Productivity and Business
App
SPECIAL HOLIDAY PRICE TODAY!!! REGULAR PRICE $9.99 Office Reader Pro is a powerful ALL IN ONE...
Yandex.Money — payments and transfers online
Finance and Business
App
This app allows you to pay for your mobile carrier services, internet services, and home utilities,...
Internal Audit Manual & Process
Business and Finance
App
Learn & apply the Processes of internal audit, compliant with IIA standards. With this app you can...
Rookie Cam - Photo Editor & Filter Camera
Photo & Video
App
FROM THE CREATORS OF MOLDIV & PICSPLAY Rookie Cam™ is the filter camera photo editor that empowers...
5-0 Radio Pro Police Scanner (Extra Feeds)
News and Utilities
App
60% Off Sale Today. To celebrate our 25 millionth download, we have dropped the price to its lowest...