Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Angel Has Fallen (2019) in Movies
Aug 26, 2019
Nolte steals the movie
It's always interesting to me that when I leave a film and realize that the best part of the movie I just saw was the extra scene during the credits. What were the folks that made this movie thinking? Did they save the best for last? Most of the time it is - unfortunately - that this scene shines BECAUSE it really has nothing to do with the rest of the film, in both style and substance.
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with ANGEL HAS FALLEN the 3rd film in the "Fallen" series (following OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN and LONDON HAS FALLEN) that follows the trials and tribulations of White House Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Gerard Butler) as he tries, once again, to save the President (a game, stern - yet sincere - Morgan Freeman) from an assassination attempt. But this time...the twist is...that Mike is framed for the attempt, so he has to go on the lamb "The Fugitive" style to clear his name and to find out who really dunnit.
I figured out who dunnit - and who was behind it - in about the first 3 minutes those characters/performers were on the screen - but it's the destination, not the journey, that counts in these types of films and this journey is..."so-so".
The plot contrivances, action sequences and chase scenes are all pretty middle-of-the-road with Director Ric Roman Waugh (SNITCH, FELON) resorting to the quick-cut, jittery camera "cinema verite" style of action shooting that, to me, shows laziness in choreography and originality and ends up giving me a bit of a headache.
So...failing a good plot and good action sequences, a film like this must have good, interesting characters and good, interesting actors inhabiting them. And...for the most part...that part of this film generates some interest as the previously mentioned Morgan Freeman, the always dependable Lance Reddick, the oily Danny Huston and the quirky Tim Blake Nelson all share the screen to good effect. Piper Perabo also joins the fray as Mike's wife and she elevates that side of the proceedings.
In the end, it comes down to the screen presence and charisma of star Gerard Butler as Mike and - unfortunately - he just doesn't have enough of that to keep things interesting. Especially when he spends a large part of the film playing against an actor who plays Butler's father - the one and only Nick Nolte.
And he...just about...steals the movie. Here is an actor that has screen presence and charisma to spare, even under long hair, a beard and a voice that has seen many, many cigarettes and booze.
And this takes us back to the beginning (or should I say, the end) of the film...Nolte and Butler share the end credits scene and it's, by far, the best darn thing in this mediocre film.
If you're going to sit through this, make sure you stay for the end credits scene.
Letter Grade B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Real Guns & Games - Master Collection
Lifestyle and Entertainment
App
Recommend by Rewind 2010 : Rewind iPhone Apps in the Appstore!* 50% HOT SALE - In app purchase....
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Close to Home in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Close To Home is, I believe, the first mystery/thriller book I have given one star to. I had very high hopes for this one. And it crashed my hopes quite hard.
Close To Home is the first book in a series called DI Adam Fawley. The books are not related to themselves and can be read as standalones. They all feature the detective Fawley, therefore the series solution. Something similar to Dan Brown's series. I listened to the audio book, and I think that the format might have a little blame on my rating.
In this book, the 8-year-old girl Daisy Mason disappears from her parents's summer party. No one in the neighbourhood saw anything, not even the parents, and the detective is trying to keep an open mind in this whole situation, as someone is clearly lying.
The story begins with an interesting premise, and I loved the initial interviews that are happening, right after the disappearance. And after this initial moment, everything goes downhill.
There are many twists in this book, and they all are happening based on dumn luck or weird circumstances.
I would understand if this happened once or twice, but they have solved the whole mystery with coincidences happening one after another as well as random plot lines being added in the middle of nowhere, just to keep the story going.
Oh - we're running out of clues. Let's add a secret random second family the dad has. Oh - we're running out of clues again. Let's add a suspicious background for the mother. And now, let's make both these events come up at them at the same time, right when we're trying to solve an investigation. And now, let's add a mental issue with the brother. (Despite receiving all doctor's reports at the beginning)...
Too many events that came up afterwards and that I still have trouble to believe could make sense.
And on top of all this, I need to mention that the book doesn't have chapters as such. The parts are split with excerpts from social media. Something which I truly believe I would have enjoyed if I read the book. But instead, I was listening to it. And it is so annoying.
The below excerpt is not a quote, as I don't have the paperback copy. However, it does represent the true format of how this sounded in the audiobook:
Twenty-ninth of October, nine twenty five.
Angela G Bettaton at angela dot g bettaton. I hope they find the person that took Daisy. Hashtag Daisy Mason. Hashtag Find Daisy.
Mike eighty seven at mike dot eight seven The person that did this should take responsibility. Hashtag Find Daisy. Hashtag Missing Girl.
The ending - it just wasn't worth the wait, and it was the most unsatisfying ending I have ever encountered in mystery novels.
I regret picking this book up and I regret reading it. I really wish I love it, as I was looking forward to Cara Hunter's new novel, but now, I am not so sure anymore.
If you think you might enjoy it, please pick it up! Perhaps you might love it, who knows!
Close To Home is the first book in a series called DI Adam Fawley. The books are not related to themselves and can be read as standalones. They all feature the detective Fawley, therefore the series solution. Something similar to Dan Brown's series. I listened to the audio book, and I think that the format might have a little blame on my rating.
In this book, the 8-year-old girl Daisy Mason disappears from her parents's summer party. No one in the neighbourhood saw anything, not even the parents, and the detective is trying to keep an open mind in this whole situation, as someone is clearly lying.
The story begins with an interesting premise, and I loved the initial interviews that are happening, right after the disappearance. And after this initial moment, everything goes downhill.
There are many twists in this book, and they all are happening based on dumn luck or weird circumstances.
I would understand if this happened once or twice, but they have solved the whole mystery with coincidences happening one after another as well as random plot lines being added in the middle of nowhere, just to keep the story going.
Oh - we're running out of clues. Let's add a secret random second family the dad has. Oh - we're running out of clues again. Let's add a suspicious background for the mother. And now, let's make both these events come up at them at the same time, right when we're trying to solve an investigation. And now, let's add a mental issue with the brother. (Despite receiving all doctor's reports at the beginning)...
Too many events that came up afterwards and that I still have trouble to believe could make sense.
And on top of all this, I need to mention that the book doesn't have chapters as such. The parts are split with excerpts from social media. Something which I truly believe I would have enjoyed if I read the book. But instead, I was listening to it. And it is so annoying.
The below excerpt is not a quote, as I don't have the paperback copy. However, it does represent the true format of how this sounded in the audiobook:
Twenty-ninth of October, nine twenty five.
Angela G Bettaton at angela dot g bettaton. I hope they find the person that took Daisy. Hashtag Daisy Mason. Hashtag Find Daisy.
Mike eighty seven at mike dot eight seven The person that did this should take responsibility. Hashtag Find Daisy. Hashtag Missing Girl.
The ending - it just wasn't worth the wait, and it was the most unsatisfying ending I have ever encountered in mystery novels.
I regret picking this book up and I regret reading it. I really wish I love it, as I was looking forward to Cara Hunter's new novel, but now, I am not so sure anymore.
If you think you might enjoy it, please pick it up! Perhaps you might love it, who knows!
Letter Quiz - alphabet tracing for kids
Games and Education
App
Letter Quiz is the best way to learn the English Alphabet with over 10,000 copies being purchased by...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Searching (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A phenomenally intriguing social media-focused movie.
There have been many movies that have featured computing and, more specifically, social media at their heart. Some these have used the device of the view “from the screen”: 2016’s entertaining “Nerve” had elements of this, with the majority of the rest of the film being ‘augmented reality’ over the video. But it was 2014’s teen-horror “Unfriended” that set a new bar being seen entirely through a computer screen. No surprise then that the producer of that one – Timur Bekmambetov – is also behind “Searching”. For – although taking a few liberties with news vidoes, that may or may not be showing on Youtube – the whole film is shot through computer screens.
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
“Oh no!” you sigh “another gimmicky B-movie”. Far from it. Not only is this a really helpful training film for Windows tips and tricks! It’s also a totally absorbing crime mystery anchored by a superb script that keeps the audience guessing to the end.
John Cho – most famous as Sulu in the Star Trek reboots – plays David Kim who is trying to control his 16 year-old daughter Margot (Michelle Ya, in her movie debut). Kim, working in some form of product development, is no technology luddite, and when Margot disappears he uses his nous about social media to try to piece together the fragments of the puzzle to assist police Detective Vick (Debra Messing, “Grace” in “Will and Grace”).
To say any more would ruin what is a masterly roller-coaster ride of twists and turns. The script by first-time director Aneesh Chaganty and Sev Ohanian doesn’t let its audience relax for a moment, spawning more movie cul-de-sacs and red herrings than a classic Agatha Christie.
In the acting stakes John Cho – who really doesn’t get given much to do in the Star Trek background – is here impressively believable as the parent, struggling with both bringing up a teen – enough to stress any mortal out – and an emotional past. Ms La is also equally engaging, given most of her scenes are via close-up web cam.
Criticisms? The film, at 102 minutes, might have usefully trimmed 10 minutes to be an even tighter 90 minute classic. I also thought it pulled its punches in the finale, where a director of the calibre of Hitchcock might have gone for a much darker angle without a qualm.
But I’m nit-picking. This is an excellent thriller that also effectively drills into grief and bereavement (a warning for anyone struggling with this – especially via the “Big C”… you might want to give this one a miss… #Up). It also ironically highlights that whilst broadcasting by people has never been more prevelant, communication between family members is sometimes totally lacking.
Clearly people agree with me that it is excellent: the preview cinema audience I saw this with was buzzing afterwards, and this won the “Audience Award” at Sundance.
“Searching” will be on general release in the UK and US from August 31st 2018. Highly recommended!
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Evil dead rise (2023) in Movies
Apr 19, 2023
Usually when a film series is embarking on a fifth outing the challenges
of keeping things fresh and original yet being new and creative can be a
massive obstacle.
Horror series ranging from “Halloween” to “Friday the 13th”, “SAW”, and
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” all faced issues with moving the series along
yet trying to stay true to the original film that inspired them and in
every case; failing to fully capture what made the original film a hit.
“Evil Dead Rise” is not only the latest entry into the series but a bold
take on the cinematic series as it abandons the remote cabin setting of
the first two films and the reboot in favor of an urban setting.
The film does open in a remote lakeside locale before jumping a day
earlier to California where estranged sisters Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland)
and Beth (Lilly Sullivan) reunite. Beth has been working as a guitar
technician and bristles that her sister refers to her as a groupie.
Ellie is raising three children after their father left and informs her
sister that the building they are living in is scheduled to be demolished
so they will have to move soon which is a shock to Beth as she has learned
that she is pregnant and is trying to figure out her life all the while
seeing what she thought would be a source of stability for her upended.
The arrival of an earthquake allows access to a hidden area in the parking
garage of their building and since the locale was a former bank; the kids
soon find a hidden book and records which the only son Danny (Morgan
Davies) hopes he can sell despite his sister Bridget (Gabrielle Echols)
admonishing him constantly to leave it alone and return it to where it was
found.
The book turns out to be a Necronomicon or “Book of the Dead” and as fans
of the series know; nothing good ever comes from one and thanks to playing
old records left by a Priest describing his thoughts on the book; a
summoning incantation is read and this causes Ellie to become possessed
and unleash grotesque carnage and terror on her family.
What follows is a gory and at times intense game of cat and mouse
punctuated by moments of levity as the demonic infestation knows no end.
The film has the over-the top- gore that is expected of the series and the
makeup and effects are very effective. Writer?Director Lee Cronin has done
a great job capturing the tone of the series while moving it forward as he
cleverly incorporates lines and nods to the series without making them
seem forced.
Some may find the excess of blood too much but the series has always been
known for taking things to the extreme as the blend of horror and comedic
parody is what made the original film such a success.
In the end “Evil Dead Rise” does enough to keep fans of the series happy
and hopefully we will be seeing a new entry in the series in the future.
3.5 stars out of 5
of keeping things fresh and original yet being new and creative can be a
massive obstacle.
Horror series ranging from “Halloween” to “Friday the 13th”, “SAW”, and
“A Nightmare on Elm Street” all faced issues with moving the series along
yet trying to stay true to the original film that inspired them and in
every case; failing to fully capture what made the original film a hit.
“Evil Dead Rise” is not only the latest entry into the series but a bold
take on the cinematic series as it abandons the remote cabin setting of
the first two films and the reboot in favor of an urban setting.
The film does open in a remote lakeside locale before jumping a day
earlier to California where estranged sisters Ellie (Alyssa Sutherland)
and Beth (Lilly Sullivan) reunite. Beth has been working as a guitar
technician and bristles that her sister refers to her as a groupie.
Ellie is raising three children after their father left and informs her
sister that the building they are living in is scheduled to be demolished
so they will have to move soon which is a shock to Beth as she has learned
that she is pregnant and is trying to figure out her life all the while
seeing what she thought would be a source of stability for her upended.
The arrival of an earthquake allows access to a hidden area in the parking
garage of their building and since the locale was a former bank; the kids
soon find a hidden book and records which the only son Danny (Morgan
Davies) hopes he can sell despite his sister Bridget (Gabrielle Echols)
admonishing him constantly to leave it alone and return it to where it was
found.
The book turns out to be a Necronomicon or “Book of the Dead” and as fans
of the series know; nothing good ever comes from one and thanks to playing
old records left by a Priest describing his thoughts on the book; a
summoning incantation is read and this causes Ellie to become possessed
and unleash grotesque carnage and terror on her family.
What follows is a gory and at times intense game of cat and mouse
punctuated by moments of levity as the demonic infestation knows no end.
The film has the over-the top- gore that is expected of the series and the
makeup and effects are very effective. Writer?Director Lee Cronin has done
a great job capturing the tone of the series while moving it forward as he
cleverly incorporates lines and nods to the series without making them
seem forced.
Some may find the excess of blood too much but the series has always been
known for taking things to the extreme as the blend of horror and comedic
parody is what made the original film such a success.
In the end “Evil Dead Rise” does enough to keep fans of the series happy
and hopefully we will be seeing a new entry in the series in the future.
3.5 stars out of 5
Remind Me (Mystic Beach Fantasy Rockstar Romances, #4)
10.0
Rate It
Book
Recipe for a Delicious Love Story: • 1 spicy rockstar • 1 salty chef • a sweet first love ...
Paranormal RockStar Romance
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The little mermaid (2023) in Movies
May 26, 2023
(By my wife Genevieve)I must admit that I may be biased about this movie, being a huge fan of all things Disney. However, the popular and beloved original The Little Mermaid was released in November 1989, about 6 months before I graduated high school. Not really the age to be that interested in an animated movie about a mermaid who trades her voice away to be able to live where the people are. But of course, I still watched it and I, like many, definitely loved the songs. The storyline? Not so much.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
When I first heard a live-action version was in the works, my initial response was tepid, "That's nice." Only when I heard a person of color would play Ariel was my curiosity really piqued. As a minority, when many asked, "Why?", I thought, "Why not?" I was very moved when I saw the videos of young Black girls reacting excitedly to the first trailer when they discovered Ariel looked like them, further answering the many still asking "Why?" with "This. This is why."
If you've seen the animated version, then you know the gist of the story - young mermaid Ariel, played beautifully by Halle Bailey, is fascinated by the world above the water and collects all the human thingamabobs that litter the sea floor. She rebels against her father, King Triton, the handsome Javier Bardem, by giving in to her curiosity and ends up rescuing the merchant Prince Eric from drowning when the ship he's sailing is caught in a treacherous storm. Ariel is instantly smitten and Prince Eric, played by the perfectly-cast Jonah Hauer-King, is equally obsessed with the voice he heard as he was revived by Ariel’s siren song.
While obviously geared towards a younger audience, I found much to love about this movie. Jodi Benson’s original version will always be perfection, but Halle Bailey’s emotional rendition of “Part of Your World”, coupled with her luminous and expressive face, was just phenomenal. I had to temper my applause after her performance while a few appreciative “Whooo!” sounded through the audience. Melissa McCarthy’s Ursula and her iconic “Poor Unfortunate Souls” was definitely a highlight. Daveed Diggs as Sebastian (also inspired casting) and Awkwafina as Scuttle need their own spinoff. They’re hilarious together.
Alan Menken’s classic songs from the original were given new life by McCarthy, Bailey, and Diggs, and Lin Manuel Miranda’s signature touch is easily identifiable in the new ballads for Ariel and Prince Eric, and a Hamilton-style rap by Awkwafina and Diggs.
I appreciated the parallel stories with the prince just as curious about the world beyond his island as Ariel is about the world beyond her ocean, both bound by duty to their parents and their people, while yearning to explore the great “out there”. In all my Disney and Pixar movie-watching experiences, it has consistently been Pixar movies that get me emotionally compromised, so I was a bit surprised to find myself reaching for a napkin at the end of this movie, after a scene between Ariel and her dad. I will blame it on the nostalgia.
4 out of 5 stars just for the musical performances alone.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Sep 20, 2018 (Updated Sep 20, 2018)
Not Quite Ready
I saw this movie in the cinema back when it came out in March earlier this year and I honestly didn't feel ready to review it after a single viewing because of all of the references etc that there was to take in. After watching the movie a couple more times and watching a bunch of Easter Egg videos on Youtube, I feel more equipped to discuss the film.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Up top, I never read the book that this film is based on. It has been recommended to me quite a few times, but I have never gotten around to reading it, so I was going into this with no pre-conceived ideas of what it was going to be other than what I had seen in the various trailers for the movie.
Let's start with the good stuff. Although I have some issues with the overabundance of CGI onscreen, as a 3d animator myself I was extremely impressed at the sheer quality of the animation in the movie. I know that this thing had a pretty high budget behind it, but still the level of quality in the animation is really high throughout the film. The references are also pretty cool, at least for the first third of the movie but the novelty of seeing some of your favourite pop culture characters does wear off after a while and ends up feeling like a cheap gimmick before too long. Finally, if all you are looking for is a big dumb fun blockbuster, then this movie provides that in spades.
Ok, onto the stuff that bothered me. As I said above, although the quality of the CGI is pretty incredible, the vast amount of it gets tiresome after a while. I also don't like the character designs at all, Parzival looks like a rejected piece of Final Fantasy artwork, Art3mis looks like a stereotypical version of a what a middle aged man thinks a cool hacker looks like with a weird resemblance to a feline, Aech just looked chunky and awkward, like something from a last-gen Gears Of War game, I-R0k's weird, edgy, fantasy-based design didn't fit his voice or the tone of the scenes he appeared in and Sorrento's avatar just looked distractingly like a dastardly Clark Kent for some reason. Also, these original character designs seemed oddly out of place being surrounded by other characters from franchises that we already know like DC and Mortal Kombat, none of it meshed well.
From this point on I am going to delve into some mid-movie spoilers, so here's your warning.
It really annoyed me how they kept touching on the idea that someone in the Oasis might not necessarily look the same as they do in real life and if you ever met them in real life you would be sorely disappointed, only for the reason for all of this to be a birthmark on Olivia Cooke's character's face. The way that they make her out to some sort of beast-like monster because of a slight skin-irregularity is ridiculous and also kinda offensive. Also, we are told during the movie's opening sequence that the Oasis is a worldwide thing, where people from anywhere on the planet can meet up online and fight together or kill each other for coins, then halfway through the movie, all of the characters meet up in a small ice cream truck in the real world and it turns out that they all live within a few miles of each other. It just made the whole thing feel really small scale. Another issue is that the movie is only 6 months old at this point and it already feels slightly dated. I don't see this movie ageing very well at all and this is both due to the CGI and the references that they choose to include.
Lastly, as I said earlier, if what you want out of this movie is mindless fun, then you'll walk away satisfied, the problem with that is that the movie seems to want to be more than that. The way that the movie treats itself and the way it was marketed along with the fact that it's got Spielberg in the director's chair, signifies that the filmmakers were intending for this to be this generation's Back To The Future or Star Wars and on that front it totally fails. In these other movies that this film is aspiring to be, you care about what happens to the characters and want to see where they go, whereas here the audience cares way more about seeing the next popular franchise references than anything that happens to the main characters at the heart of this story and once you've seen the film, you are going to leave talking about the characters that appeared from outside franchises rather than the ones created for this story. The characters are also instantly forgettable, for example I have seen this film three times now and still couldn't tell you the real world names of any of the characters other than Wade Watts and Sorrento and that's only because he has the same name in the real world as he does in the Oasis. I also don't care if I ever see any of these characters again if I'm being honest. I'm sure there is probably a sequel to this already being planned seeing as it made a bunch of money at the box office and there is apparently a sequel book in the works, but frankly I wouldn't care if I never saw any of these characters again and I don't care where the story is going either.
In conclusion, Ready Player One doesn't achieve the goal that it sets for itself of being a modern sci-fi classic, but there is a lot of fun to be had here along with some impressive animation to boot. The movie has a fairly shallow, hollow feel to it throughout, as if we are scratching the surface of something potentially engaging and worth investing in, but the filmmakers constantly keep distracting us with flashy visuals and obscure pop culture references. If the movie committed to telling a more original story rather than being obsessed with the 80's classics it is exploiting, then it may be more worthwhile. Also, it's definitely not Spielberg's best, this may be a bit harsh but it's probably closer to Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull than Raiders Of The Lost Ark. I wish that Smashbomb had a half star rating system, because although I feel that the movie was better than a 6, I don't like it enough to give it a 7, so a 6.5 would sum up how I felt about the film more accurately.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2020
It has felt like a long wait to get to this film, there was a lot of talk when Midway was coming out so I was very glad it finally arrived.
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html
Lance Corporal Blake has been told to report with another soldier, the respite from war was short but something important must be afoot. It's more than just important, it's life and death for Blake's older brother. His company have sent word that they're going to advance on the retreating German troops but communications are down and they don't know they're going headfirst into a trap.
Blake and Schofield are tasked with finding a way to their position to stop the advance before they lead 1,600 men into the ambush. Between them and their objective? No man's land, abandoned German trenches and large expanses of open land. One another and vigilance are all they have to get them to their objective.
I ended up seeing this twice on its opening weekend, mainly for technical reasons. When I completed my first watch I saw a lot of tweets about its "one-shot" filming and details of an interview about the filming techniques used, that all made me want to go back and watch for more detail.
If I'm honest with you I didn't notice the "one-shot" filming during my first trip to the cinema. In the interview I saw it said that there were no takes longer than 9 minutes, with its running time that meant that at the very least there were 14 cuts... of course I wanted to go and try to spot them. There were only a few "obvious" ones, but even then some of those felt so seamless that you wouldn't question if they said it was done in one (two) shot(s).
The effects in the film are fantastic, but also one of my only quibbles. There are several video clips with and without effects on floating around the internet and you'll see the massive effort that went into these effects. The major scene that comes to mind is in the trailer, Schofield is running across the field as the regiment is advancing around him. I had just assumed that the shot was aerial, but no, it was filmed from the back of a truck. That doesn't sound all that strange until you see in this video that the truck has a road to drive down that is then CGId out for the final cut. That was incredible to see. But this scene is also the only scene that made me doubt the effects too. When I watched it on the big screen it felt clear that some of the explosions were generated, and watching the clips proved that feeling to be right.
I could ramble on about the effects in this for ages but I need to remember there are other things to talk about... but well, I want to rave a little.
The nighttime scene is truly incredible to watch. It makes you paranoid and scared, you watch the shadows for soldiers and survivors, ugh, gripping and terrifying all at the same time.
Right, come one... move along, Emma!
Not much of a switch but I want to mention what I believe are mainly physical effects. One of the first scenes shows Blake and Schofield going through the trenches and over no man's land, walking through the trenches takes a long time, the fact they dug all of that and decked out the entire length for what is sometimes just a fleeting view. The soldiers as they sleep against the walls blending in like they're not there, the claustrophobic feeling as they walls creep higher and closer around them, and just the sheer volume of people down there. Both fast-paced and drawn out at the same time this whole sequence is complex and important.
After the trenches we see them go over the top into no man's land. The pair of them make an amazing job of playing in the mud. It's another part of the film that makes you look around. What's floating in the water? What's hidden in the mud? Truly spectacular additions and I imagine that on every viewing you'd see something different and horrific appear.
Come on, Emma... acting.
There are a lot of cameos from recognisable talented actors but the nature of the story means they're only the briefest of scenes. Mark Strong was probably my favourite of those, his tone at that critical part of the film was perfect.
To our main duo... Blake is played by Dean-Charles Chapman, a face I recognised but had to look up. I'd seen him most recently in The King and Blinded By The Light but clearly neither of those roles stuck with me. Schofield is played by George MacKay who I haven't seen in anything before. The pair had an interesting dynamic, there was certainly a camaraderie there but I swung between thinking they were good friends and just acquaintances because of their behaviour towards each other. Their characters felt very much at two ends of the scale, Blake optimistic and almost a little green, Schofield, battle-worn and sceptical.
Between the two I can easily say that George MacKay was the better performer. He does get some of the headier scenes to deal with but Chapman felt like he wasn't in a warzone. There were still good moments there but I wasn't as convinced by his performance. MacKay was acting even when he wasn't acting, his moments of silence were just as impressive as his scripted parts.
There is just so much in 1917 to look at, the background is so well thought out that you're drawn to it just as much as the action that's in the foreground. You're scanning everything as they move with them like you're a member of their regiment. It feels like it needs to be watched a couple of times. I watched it to see it, I watched it to watch the techniques and I feel like I want to see it again just to watch that background. None of these watches are for anything other than the technical side of things though. Even though I felt emotional connections with parts of the story it's still a basic quest with obstacles and while it's an interesting look at soldiers and their dedication it's not all that extraordinary.
This truly deserves to win a lot of technical awards. I'm not sure that the acting or script hit the same heights, but as a whole 1917 is definitely something special to see.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/01/1917-movie-review.html