Search
Search results
Dankwa Brooks (5 KP) rated Only God Forgives (2013) in Movies
Mar 9, 2018
A stunningly beautiful film, every frame is a painting, but also a stunningly violent film. RYAN GOSLING does his usual 10 words a picture when he works with director NICOLAS WINDING REFN and the story is WAY better than their last collaboration 'Drive'. Performance wise it is KRISTIN SCOTT THOMAS that own this picture. Talk about domineering. Must also give mad props to cinematographer LARRY SMITH who made everything and I do mean everything so damn beautiful. He may be the only person to get an Oscar nomination from this and he deserves not only the nomination, but the win.
Dork_knight74 (881 KP) rated The Captive (2014) in Movies
Jul 28, 2018
Found this one on Netflix. It stars Ryan Reynolds, Scott Speedman and Rosario Dawson. It's a movie about a couple whose daughter is kidnapped by a group of people who like to watch children online being abused. The game her for 8yrs and use her to lure other children online to meet them. This movie is an excellent crime drama. They don't show anything graphic but there's mild violence and cursing. I would say kids could watch this to see the dangers of meeting strangers on line. All around the acting, cinematography and storyline are great. This one is really worth a watch!
Lenard (726 KP) rated Late Night (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Late Night is a well-written comedy about a non-white female hired to add diversity to the writing staff of a late night talk show. Katherine Newbury (Emma Thompson showing the comic skills developed during her university days as Hugh Laurie's girlfriend) is a older sophisticated woman who hosts a show whose audience is dying off, literally in some cases and figuratively. If things do not improve, she will no longer be host of her eponymous talk show. So, in an unexpected but obvious hiring decision, Molly Patel is hired to join the writing staff. At first, seen as an interloper with little comedy or writing experience, Molly uses her Mindy Kaling charm to win over her co-workers and her boss. As Katherine starts to see a way to take advantage of her uniqueness and the youth of Molly, she challenges the status quo of late night.
The movie is charming. The characters are developed and not cardboard cutouts of caricatures thanks to the writing, Max Casella, Reid Scott, Denis O'Hare, Hugh Dancy, Amy Ryan, and John Lithgow have backstories and motivations. However, the movie never really goes after the boys' club landscape that late night television inhabits nor does it go after the concept of diversity hires. It simply turns Molly into some sprite who sprinkles enthusiasm into the mundane lives of the people she encounters. Late Night also begins the campaign for John Lithgow as this year's Best Supporting Actor, Not for this role as the mentor for Molly's transformation to strong woman and devoted husband of Katherine who learns the meaning of karma, but for his role later this year as Roger Ailes.
The movie is charming. The characters are developed and not cardboard cutouts of caricatures thanks to the writing, Max Casella, Reid Scott, Denis O'Hare, Hugh Dancy, Amy Ryan, and John Lithgow have backstories and motivations. However, the movie never really goes after the boys' club landscape that late night television inhabits nor does it go after the concept of diversity hires. It simply turns Molly into some sprite who sprinkles enthusiasm into the mundane lives of the people she encounters. Late Night also begins the campaign for John Lithgow as this year's Best Supporting Actor, Not for this role as the mentor for Molly's transformation to strong woman and devoted husband of Katherine who learns the meaning of karma, but for his role later this year as Roger Ailes.
JT (287 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Brilliant cinematography (2 more)
Great score
Fantastic central characters
A stunning film which hits hard both physically and emotionally
particular emphasis on cinematography. The World War I film is made to look like one continuous shot by director Sam Mendes whose one-shot opening of Spectre gave us a taste of things to come.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
The film swept awards season with the film winning Best Drama Motion Picture at the Golden Globes, not to mention cleaning up at the BAFTAs. This was a strong indication that Mendes might have a hand on a couple of Oscars.
1917 tells the story of two Lance Corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) who are tasked with hand-delivering a message to another battalion who are inadvertently walking into a trap – Blake’s brother among them. If they fail then 1,600 men will lose their lives.
Blake and Schofield have been through a lot. When we first meet them they are relaxing beneath a tree, taking a break trying to enjoy the peaceful surroundings.
Without so much as a thought the pair salute General Erinmore (Colin Firth) and start the first part of their harrowing journey crossing no man’s land. The film is gripping in every sense of the word and you feel as if you are making the treacherous journey with them.
The scenery is devastatingly realistic, particularly the trip across no man’s land where charred bodies are buried deep in bombed-out craters of mud, their faces starring out in a look of shock.
The cast is limited to a few big-name cameos which aren’t blink and you miss them. Joining Firth is Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch who make a significant impression in key scenes. The film flows incredibly well and never takes a back step, quite literally.
This is a journey that rivals Saving Private Ryan for it’s impactfulness, and why the memories of those who fought in the great war should always be forever remembered as true heroes.
Lee Richmond (19 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Mar 2, 2019
The key to the future is finally unearthed.
I must admit, my hopes where not high. Since 2012 I have witnessed Ridley Scott wiping his arse on his past glory with the ever worsening Alien Prequels. I hated Prometheus and the less said about Alien Covenant the better. Not only that but did Blade Runner really need a sequel? I was of the strong belief that it did not. The original was a beautifully told, self contained flick with a strong start, middle and end. Throw in to the mix the fact that generally a movie sequel that appears a few decades after the original is rarely as good as what came before. I'm talking about you Indiana Jones, Dumb and Dumber and so on..
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".
Taking that all into account I sat down to watch Blade Runner 2049 with the most open mind I could muster and as the end credits rolled the only thought in my sci-fi frazzled head was "holy shit what a movie"..
I loved it. Not just liked it. Not just found it to be ok (which was about all I had hoped for). I fucking loved it. My wife found it slow and eventually wandered off for a bath but I loved it. I loved the visuals that burst forth from the screen and penetrated my brain through my eyeballs. The story was equally as compelling as the original. Ryan Gosling was great. Harrison Ford was great. The nods to the original all great and never sickly nostalgic.
I can honestly say that I have never been so happy to be wrong. Although there is a 30+ year gap between both films I didn't feel that the special effects (although stunning here) did anything to spoil those of the original. Hopefully this movie has taught me to be more open minded but somehow I imagine I will always be this cynical old bastard that those who know me have come to love or loathe.
If you haven't seen this film yet, or if like me you're expecting the worst, my advice would be "stop being an arse and enjoy the spectacle and dare I say masterpiece? That Blade Runner 2049 truly is".
JT (287 KP) rated Only God Forgives (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Now here is a film that completely split critics. It’s not going to be everyone’s cup of tea and it’s clear to see why. Anyone expecting a well constructed follow up to Winding Refn’s hit Drive are going to be sorely disappointed, as Only God Forgives serves up a mix of beautiful neon visuals, character dreamscapes and minimal dialogue.
Julian (Ryan Gosling) runs a Thai boxing club deep in the heart of Bangkok using it as front for a drug smuggling ring with his brother. Events take a horrific turn when his brother rapes and murders an underage prostitute. Enter retired cop Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), more well known as the ‘Angel of Vengeance’ who has a unique and almost godlike way of handing out retribution to those who cross his path.
When he allows Julian’s brother to be murdered by the father of the girl he killed, Julian’s mother Crystal and family matriarch heads out to demand that Julian take revenge for his brothers death.
Only God Forgives is a film doused in deep colours that awash the actors on screen and cast them in a variety of different lights. It feels a bit art house and at times arrogant. This must have been the easiest pay cheque that Gosling has ever picked up. He barely speaks and stamps any authority on screen by long drawn out stares of which he is the master.
Scott Thomas is not the mother figure that you would expect to have. Goading Julian into submission in a vile and disgusting manner she belittles him, prompting the question that he is half the man his brother is. She is one of the few standouts. All blonde hair and jewellery along with a arsenal of foul language. However, it will be Chang that leaves the afterthought, as he glides about unleashing his sword on those who stand in his way.
Only God Forgives is violent, and it is certainly not for the faint-hearted, the spilling of blood (particularly one hard to watch scene) is in keeping with the tonal colour of the setting. It doesn’t have Drive’s slickness but does come with an equally pulsating sound track.
There is no arguing that from a cinematography point of view this film his head and shoulders above others. But there is the odd occasion when you really have to question the director and what it was that he set out to achieve?
Julian (Ryan Gosling) runs a Thai boxing club deep in the heart of Bangkok using it as front for a drug smuggling ring with his brother. Events take a horrific turn when his brother rapes and murders an underage prostitute. Enter retired cop Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm), more well known as the ‘Angel of Vengeance’ who has a unique and almost godlike way of handing out retribution to those who cross his path.
When he allows Julian’s brother to be murdered by the father of the girl he killed, Julian’s mother Crystal and family matriarch heads out to demand that Julian take revenge for his brothers death.
Only God Forgives is a film doused in deep colours that awash the actors on screen and cast them in a variety of different lights. It feels a bit art house and at times arrogant. This must have been the easiest pay cheque that Gosling has ever picked up. He barely speaks and stamps any authority on screen by long drawn out stares of which he is the master.
Scott Thomas is not the mother figure that you would expect to have. Goading Julian into submission in a vile and disgusting manner she belittles him, prompting the question that he is half the man his brother is. She is one of the few standouts. All blonde hair and jewellery along with a arsenal of foul language. However, it will be Chang that leaves the afterthought, as he glides about unleashing his sword on those who stand in his way.
Only God Forgives is violent, and it is certainly not for the faint-hearted, the spilling of blood (particularly one hard to watch scene) is in keeping with the tonal colour of the setting. It doesn’t have Drive’s slickness but does come with an equally pulsating sound track.
There is no arguing that from a cinematography point of view this film his head and shoulders above others. But there is the odd occasion when you really have to question the director and what it was that he set out to achieve?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Big Hero 6 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Mixing Anime with the cutting edge animation that Disney is famous for, “Big Hero 6” is the latest offering from the studio legendary for animated classics.
The film is sent in a near-future San Francisco which is now known as San Fransokyo and follows a boy genius named Hiro (Ryan Potter) who along with his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) lives with his Aunt after being orphaned.
Hiro is very good at designing fighting robots and despite it being illegal; he has managed to earn himself some nice money winning fights on the underground circuit.
His brother wants him to do better and takes him to his college, and encourages him to enroll and follow him and his friends in helping build a better tomorrow.
Hiro opts to enter a technology showcase and blows away the competition which ensures him a place in the school and working with his brother and his team.
At the moment of his greatest triumph, tragedy strikes and Hiro finds himself in deep depression and unwilling to enter school and complete his education. When a freak discovery leads Hiro to learn that his invention has been stolen by a mysterious figure in a Kabuki mask, Hiro must use his knowledge along with Baymax (Scott Adsit), a medical robot designed by his brother to save the day.
Hiro is not without help as aside from complex fighting and flight tools and armor added to Baymax, Hiro enlists and equips his brother’s friends to form an elite fighting unit.
As the team gets closer to the mystery the danger grows, and Hiro must grow beyond his years to do what is right and learn some hard life lessons in the process.
The film is a bit slow to start and parents will want to note the PG rating as it may be a bit dark and intense for younger viewers.
Old viewers may get a bit impatient with the setup but after the first 45 minutes the film gets down to great characters and action which are the selling points of the film.
It was very clear to me that Disney was aiming the film mainly to the Asian markets and to fans of anime but I found the characters growing on me as it went along and I really enjoyed the 3D animation which was wonderful to behold.
In the end it was a pleasant enough introduction to what I hope is the first of many films in the series. Eagle eyed viewers will want to look carefully for a Stan Lee cameo as it is one to enjoy as is this charming new franchise film from Disney.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/07/big-hero-6/
The film is sent in a near-future San Francisco which is now known as San Fransokyo and follows a boy genius named Hiro (Ryan Potter) who along with his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) lives with his Aunt after being orphaned.
Hiro is very good at designing fighting robots and despite it being illegal; he has managed to earn himself some nice money winning fights on the underground circuit.
His brother wants him to do better and takes him to his college, and encourages him to enroll and follow him and his friends in helping build a better tomorrow.
Hiro opts to enter a technology showcase and blows away the competition which ensures him a place in the school and working with his brother and his team.
At the moment of his greatest triumph, tragedy strikes and Hiro finds himself in deep depression and unwilling to enter school and complete his education. When a freak discovery leads Hiro to learn that his invention has been stolen by a mysterious figure in a Kabuki mask, Hiro must use his knowledge along with Baymax (Scott Adsit), a medical robot designed by his brother to save the day.
Hiro is not without help as aside from complex fighting and flight tools and armor added to Baymax, Hiro enlists and equips his brother’s friends to form an elite fighting unit.
As the team gets closer to the mystery the danger grows, and Hiro must grow beyond his years to do what is right and learn some hard life lessons in the process.
The film is a bit slow to start and parents will want to note the PG rating as it may be a bit dark and intense for younger viewers.
Old viewers may get a bit impatient with the setup but after the first 45 minutes the film gets down to great characters and action which are the selling points of the film.
It was very clear to me that Disney was aiming the film mainly to the Asian markets and to fans of anime but I found the characters growing on me as it went along and I really enjoyed the 3D animation which was wonderful to behold.
In the end it was a pleasant enough introduction to what I hope is the first of many films in the series. Eagle eyed viewers will want to look carefully for a Stan Lee cameo as it is one to enjoy as is this charming new franchise film from Disney.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/07/big-hero-6/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/