Search
Search results
365Flicks (235 KP) rated Ice Guardians (2016) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Speaking from my own personal perspective, Ice Guardians is one of the most interesting gripping documentary’s I have watched recently. Full Disclosure first… I am a Brit, a little Englander if you will so my knowledge of Ice Hockey and the world of that sport is very limited to the Mighty Ducks movies. However I love a good personal Documentary that can engage me in something I know little about. Ice Guardians covers that for me so lets do this.
Director Brett Harvey carefully and passionately explores one of the most controversial and provocative positions in the history the National Hockey League, the Enforcer.
This movie is the Story of the most controversial positions in the world of sport, from its birth (out of little policing by the refs in the game) to today. ‘The Enforcer’ this is a position that has been talked about through the decades. Is it needed? Is it Necessary? Who the hell would take this role in a game of Ice Hockey?. Essentially the role is to be an “Ice Boxer” hit harder and faster than the guy on the opposite side, be such a menace that everyone on your team is safe because the opposition are scared Shit-less to start something because you will get them.
Of course my simplistic analysis above is that of a man before watching this movie. Watch as giants of the game and some of the hardest son of bitches in the position, strip everything back to bare all on the role they play, why they play it and the sheer scrutiny they are are faced with on a day to day basis. I will honestly say I was moved by this Documentary at times, these men are looked at like caged beasts, Unhinged if you want. However these men are exactly that ‘MEN’ with more Honor, Integrity and way more Loyalty than most Sportsmen.
Written by Harvey and Scott Dodds, the film features interviews with NFL greats such as Dave “The Hammer” Schultz, Clark Gillies and Dave Semenko.
We at 365 Highly recommend this Documentary and hope you will it a chance because it is engaging as hell and gives you a deep insight into the role of the Enforcer from the Enforcers point of view. Its not as black and white as you may think and I truly think you will take something away to think from this flick.
I want you all to watch this movie its wonderfully made and deals with a subject like this carefully and with the respect it deserves.
Director Brett Harvey carefully and passionately explores one of the most controversial and provocative positions in the history the National Hockey League, the Enforcer.
This movie is the Story of the most controversial positions in the world of sport, from its birth (out of little policing by the refs in the game) to today. ‘The Enforcer’ this is a position that has been talked about through the decades. Is it needed? Is it Necessary? Who the hell would take this role in a game of Ice Hockey?. Essentially the role is to be an “Ice Boxer” hit harder and faster than the guy on the opposite side, be such a menace that everyone on your team is safe because the opposition are scared Shit-less to start something because you will get them.
Of course my simplistic analysis above is that of a man before watching this movie. Watch as giants of the game and some of the hardest son of bitches in the position, strip everything back to bare all on the role they play, why they play it and the sheer scrutiny they are are faced with on a day to day basis. I will honestly say I was moved by this Documentary at times, these men are looked at like caged beasts, Unhinged if you want. However these men are exactly that ‘MEN’ with more Honor, Integrity and way more Loyalty than most Sportsmen.
Written by Harvey and Scott Dodds, the film features interviews with NFL greats such as Dave “The Hammer” Schultz, Clark Gillies and Dave Semenko.
We at 365 Highly recommend this Documentary and hope you will it a chance because it is engaging as hell and gives you a deep insight into the role of the Enforcer from the Enforcers point of view. Its not as black and white as you may think and I truly think you will take something away to think from this flick.
I want you all to watch this movie its wonderfully made and deals with a subject like this carefully and with the respect it deserves.
Andrew Kennedy (199 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Aug 31, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
A new Alien film is something I look forward too. They promised we would find out about xeno origins and see new strains. Plus, Ridley was directing, what could go wrong?
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.
You could end up making a film that feels like a remake of the first film.
The set up to get us to the planet, crew interaction and things going badly wrong on the planet feels so familiar.
So the positives, Michael Fassbender is outstanding in his performance as Walter/David. He seriously acts rings round anybody else.
The score is fabulous and rich.
Danny McBride is also noteworthy for his performance.
Katherine Waterston is likeable but feels like trying to be Ripley but not.
Negatives the Xenos get very little screen time. I think were 45 mins+ in before we see one.
Billy Crudup is very unlikeable and his death barely made me care.
The origin story ending up been David created the xenos. I don't know this stuck in my craw a bit. I just feel vengeful synthetic created the ultimate organism is a bit of a let down.
After, the first film Scott said he expected other sequels to ask "where did the xeno come from?" question.
The problem is that question is difficult to give a satisfactory answer too. Like most fandom people have there own theories and in truth does it matter?
Covenant has big ideas, it just doesn't execute them all properly.
Hadley (567 KP) rated On Fire: a Teen Wolf Novel in Books
Feb 3, 2020
Favorite TV show (1 more)
Great side story
Nancy Holder is known in the literary world for her novel adaptations of TV shows, such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Smallville, which has made her the go-to author for popular teen shows. With her ability to mesh together a story with what is going on within the TV show, I'm not surprised that she was picked to adapt MTV's 'Teen Wolf' into a novel. Having only read this book by her, On Fire: a Teen Wolf Novel, is definitely a successful must-read for fans of the show.
Do you need to have watched the show to understand what is going on in the novel? Yes, because the book does backtrack, but unless you've watched at least season one, you will have no idea what is going on. But if you have watched the first season, On Fire will fill in the small gaps that was left out of the TV show's story without losing the characteristics of our favorite cast members.
This is a 'young adult' book, so you can expect the usual tropes like teen drama and romance - - - if you can get past that, the story can be enjoyable. The main characters are different enough to keep interest going, there are werewolves, and some men with guns. But I do have to say that I felt Allison's character was flat and boring in 'On Fire.'
The story gets underway when the main character, Scott, finds out that his girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend, Jackson, has gone missing. Scott and his girlfriend, Allison, decide to go look for him at the last place his phone's GPS blinked at, but Scott is using this just as an excuse to hang out with his girlfriend because Jackson is a sworn enemy of his. As I have said, if you haven't at least watched season one of MTV's Teen Wolf, you'll be pretty lost in the beginning of the story because there are no introductions to these characters, since it seems Holder was writing this specifically for fans of the TV show (I am a huge fan of the series, and highly recommend it to people who love mythical creatures, such as werewolves and banshees).
On the other side of the story, viewers of the show get to see Derek Hale and Kate Argent's backstory, which Derek is a werewolf and Kate is a werewolf hunter, the two had a quick romance, but it turned out to be a lie on Kate's side. This side of the story will make fans of the show happy because the series only gave hints towards the fake romance between the two characters, while Holder shows us exactly what happened. From Derek meeting Kate when he is only 17-years-old, and she older, to her burning the Hale household to the ground with most of Derek's family inside of it--- because she hunts werewolves, of course.
Meanwhile, both Derek and Scott have been having nightmares about an Alpha wolf, that seems to either want both of them dead or to join his pack. Worse of all, Scott and Derek both end up at the forest preserve that the dreams took place in, which both feel another wolf presence while being there. Since they both sense this, they start to wonder if Jackson's disappearance is a trap set by the Alpha.
During all of this, Jackson's girlfriend, Lydia, and his best friend Danny, are also searching for Jackson or any clue as to why he suddenly disappeared, which this has nothing to do with what actually happens to Jackson in the TV series. I think the best parts of this book are the scenes without Scott and Allison, who spend the majority of the time trying to make-out while doing a half-ass job searching for the lost friend. As I said before, if you can get past the teen romance, the story is actually really good. Especially my favorite character, Stiles, who had the best description in the entire book: "Life in his[Stiles] head was accompanied by the soundtrack of a small, eternal, dull ache, but word was that would go away after a few decades."
If you have watched the show, you'll be glad to know that this book isn't just an adaptation of season two--- this one has a different story in it that wasn't in the show. Without giving too much away, we get a different glimpse of Jackson's personality and problems he has dealt with much of his life. The book isn't a necessary read for fans, but it gives us a little bit more of the Teen Wolf world to read about, such as introductions of new characters (like a high school girl named Cassie), who never made it to the TV series. While reading this book, it can tempt readers to go back or even start watching the MTV series. I warn you, though, once you start watching, you won't be able to stop. Binge fest anyone?
There were a few inconsistencies, and a whole lot of typos--- whoever the editor was, was apparently not paying attention, but the story is good and the characters are unique. I recommend this to people who have watched the series, and to those who love mythical creatures. But I do wholeheartedly recommend you watch season one before attempting to read this novel, otherwise, you will be lost!
For more paranormal and fantasy book reviews, check out my blog at GoreAndTea.com
Do you need to have watched the show to understand what is going on in the novel? Yes, because the book does backtrack, but unless you've watched at least season one, you will have no idea what is going on. But if you have watched the first season, On Fire will fill in the small gaps that was left out of the TV show's story without losing the characteristics of our favorite cast members.
This is a 'young adult' book, so you can expect the usual tropes like teen drama and romance - - - if you can get past that, the story can be enjoyable. The main characters are different enough to keep interest going, there are werewolves, and some men with guns. But I do have to say that I felt Allison's character was flat and boring in 'On Fire.'
The story gets underway when the main character, Scott, finds out that his girlfriend's best friend's boyfriend, Jackson, has gone missing. Scott and his girlfriend, Allison, decide to go look for him at the last place his phone's GPS blinked at, but Scott is using this just as an excuse to hang out with his girlfriend because Jackson is a sworn enemy of his. As I have said, if you haven't at least watched season one of MTV's Teen Wolf, you'll be pretty lost in the beginning of the story because there are no introductions to these characters, since it seems Holder was writing this specifically for fans of the TV show (I am a huge fan of the series, and highly recommend it to people who love mythical creatures, such as werewolves and banshees).
On the other side of the story, viewers of the show get to see Derek Hale and Kate Argent's backstory, which Derek is a werewolf and Kate is a werewolf hunter, the two had a quick romance, but it turned out to be a lie on Kate's side. This side of the story will make fans of the show happy because the series only gave hints towards the fake romance between the two characters, while Holder shows us exactly what happened. From Derek meeting Kate when he is only 17-years-old, and she older, to her burning the Hale household to the ground with most of Derek's family inside of it--- because she hunts werewolves, of course.
Meanwhile, both Derek and Scott have been having nightmares about an Alpha wolf, that seems to either want both of them dead or to join his pack. Worse of all, Scott and Derek both end up at the forest preserve that the dreams took place in, which both feel another wolf presence while being there. Since they both sense this, they start to wonder if Jackson's disappearance is a trap set by the Alpha.
During all of this, Jackson's girlfriend, Lydia, and his best friend Danny, are also searching for Jackson or any clue as to why he suddenly disappeared, which this has nothing to do with what actually happens to Jackson in the TV series. I think the best parts of this book are the scenes without Scott and Allison, who spend the majority of the time trying to make-out while doing a half-ass job searching for the lost friend. As I said before, if you can get past the teen romance, the story is actually really good. Especially my favorite character, Stiles, who had the best description in the entire book: "Life in his[Stiles] head was accompanied by the soundtrack of a small, eternal, dull ache, but word was that would go away after a few decades."
If you have watched the show, you'll be glad to know that this book isn't just an adaptation of season two--- this one has a different story in it that wasn't in the show. Without giving too much away, we get a different glimpse of Jackson's personality and problems he has dealt with much of his life. The book isn't a necessary read for fans, but it gives us a little bit more of the Teen Wolf world to read about, such as introductions of new characters (like a high school girl named Cassie), who never made it to the TV series. While reading this book, it can tempt readers to go back or even start watching the MTV series. I warn you, though, once you start watching, you won't be able to stop. Binge fest anyone?
There were a few inconsistencies, and a whole lot of typos--- whoever the editor was, was apparently not paying attention, but the story is good and the characters are unique. I recommend this to people who have watched the series, and to those who love mythical creatures. But I do wholeheartedly recommend you watch season one before attempting to read this novel, otherwise, you will be lost!
For more paranormal and fantasy book reviews, check out my blog at GoreAndTea.com
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated House of Gucci (2021) in Movies
May 14, 2022
Not As Bad As You Heard
“It’s Not As Bad As You Heard” is the very definition of damning with faint praise, but that phrase accurately describes one of the highest profile film failures of 2021 - HOUSE OF GUCCI.
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by Ridley Scott with a screenplay by Becky Johnson and Roberto Bentivegna (based on the book by Sara Gay Forden), HOUSE OF GUCCI tells the tale of the Gucci family and their fashion empire as the family sees a transition from the older generation to the new - and the outsider who stirred the pot.
This film is filled with stars - Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Al Pacino, Jeremy Irons and Jared Leto - and is Directed by the great Ridley Scott, so why didn’t this film work?
Ultimately, films rise and fall with the script and the direction thereof, and unfortunately, both of these fall well short of good…but above bad.
Ridley Scott seemed to direct this film with the attitude of “the actors will fill out the thinness of the script, so I’ll just leave them to their own devices”, and this approach just doesn’t work.
Lady Gaga, so good in A STAR IS BORN, is just a little lost as Patricia Reggiani - the outsider (some would say Gold Digger) who digs her claws into a hapless Maurizio Gucci (Adam Driver). The first part of this film is mostly interesting as we watch Patricia manipulate Maurizio into marrying her - much to the dismay of his unapproving father, Rodolfo Gucci (Jeremy Irons, in the only characterization of this film that works from beginning to end). Driver is mostly good as the milquetoast heir who grows into a Business Mogul, but his character is mostly dealing with internal turmoil that turns into blank expressions on screen - NOT a good move for a movie.
And then the film takes a turn into burlesque with the introduction of Rodolfo’s brother and business partner, Aldo Gucci (Al Pacino) and his “idiot son”, Paolo Gucci (Jared Leto, unrecognizable under his make-up). It’s not often that you can say that Pacino is “out-over-acted” by another performer, but Leto mops the floor with him. While Pacino, actually, dials back his usual tendency to over-act, Leto goes all in on the over-acting front - so much so that one has to wonder what type of film that Leto thought he was acting in.
Ultimately, the film falls short because of a lack of focus. The movie (kind of) tries to tell the story from every characters’ point of view and in that attempt, fails, and ends up telling the story from no one’s point of view. The film starts with Gaga’s character being the entry point into the story for the viewer, but then we kareem off into Driver’s story, somewhat, and them (maybe) Pacino and Leto’s before coming back to Gaga (for a small bit) and then jumping over to Driver’s…
Well, you get the point. House of Gucci loses it’s focus along the way so you are left wishing you could get more from these characters - except for Leto’s - you wish there was a lot less.
Letter Grade: C+
5 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020
Beautifully made
I've been dying to see this film since it was released, and finally had a free afternoon off today to go and see it, and I am so glad to say it was definitely worth the wait.
The single shot cinematography is possible the most beautiful and impressive bit of filmmaking I've ever seen. Aside from one noticeable cut, it's astounding to see how they've made this in one single shot and in such a smooth and sleek manner. Pairing this with a haunting score and some rather tense and heart wrenching scenes makes for a stunningly made film. Mendes has done a brilliant job.
And then there's the performances. The pairing of Schofield and Blake almost begins very much like a buddy movie, with a few laughs and a lot of heart warming moments, and there are great performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay. MacKay especially is outstanding and is surely one to watch. I also enjoyed the rather brief encounters with the rest of the stellar cast of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott etc and they fit in well with the tone of the film.
My only negative is that there are a couple of what I thought of as silly decisions that seem to pop up in a lot of war films, which is mostly why I've decided to dock this down to a 9 as I groaned a little. But despite this, 1917 is definitely an outstanding film that would be very deserving of any awards it wins.
The single shot cinematography is possible the most beautiful and impressive bit of filmmaking I've ever seen. Aside from one noticeable cut, it's astounding to see how they've made this in one single shot and in such a smooth and sleek manner. Pairing this with a haunting score and some rather tense and heart wrenching scenes makes for a stunningly made film. Mendes has done a brilliant job.
And then there's the performances. The pairing of Schofield and Blake almost begins very much like a buddy movie, with a few laughs and a lot of heart warming moments, and there are great performances from Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay. MacKay especially is outstanding and is surely one to watch. I also enjoyed the rather brief encounters with the rest of the stellar cast of Colin Firth, Andrew Scott etc and they fit in well with the tone of the film.
My only negative is that there are a couple of what I thought of as silly decisions that seem to pop up in a lot of war films, which is mostly why I've decided to dock this down to a 9 as I groaned a little. But despite this, 1917 is definitely an outstanding film that would be very deserving of any awards it wins.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Apr 20, 2019
Not bad, but nothing special
The first Ant-Man film was a pleasant surprise and much better than expected, but it was still lacking in some of the magic of the other Marvel films. Sadly Ant-Man and The Wasp suffers even more than the first.
I love Paul Rudd and I think he's the best thing about this film by far, his Scott Lang is nothing other than lovable. The second best things about this film are Michael Douglas who is surprisingly funny and of course Michael Pena, but sadly the rest of the cast fall flat. The bad guys aren't particularly threatening and the whole film lacks any real threat, tension or suspense. I'm also not a big fan of Hope. I have nothing against Evangeline Lilly but I find Hope a little dull and irritating and not endearing in the slightest.
The effects in this are good but after the first film there's nothing particularly remarkable. The plot just seems a bit generic and boring, and the film drags and it isn't even on for 2 hours. I just found the whole thing a bit meh, it's entertaining enough with just enough humour and nods to the other Marvel characters but it's nothing special. What I liked the most was the toy-like end credits sequence. Oh and the post credits scene is totally not worth it. This isn't a bad Marvel film, and certainly isn't anywhere near the likes of Iron Man 3, but it's just a good/average film lacking anything memorable. And that's not good enough when it has to follow something like Infinity War.
I love Paul Rudd and I think he's the best thing about this film by far, his Scott Lang is nothing other than lovable. The second best things about this film are Michael Douglas who is surprisingly funny and of course Michael Pena, but sadly the rest of the cast fall flat. The bad guys aren't particularly threatening and the whole film lacks any real threat, tension or suspense. I'm also not a big fan of Hope. I have nothing against Evangeline Lilly but I find Hope a little dull and irritating and not endearing in the slightest.
The effects in this are good but after the first film there's nothing particularly remarkable. The plot just seems a bit generic and boring, and the film drags and it isn't even on for 2 hours. I just found the whole thing a bit meh, it's entertaining enough with just enough humour and nods to the other Marvel characters but it's nothing special. What I liked the most was the toy-like end credits sequence. Oh and the post credits scene is totally not worth it. This isn't a bad Marvel film, and certainly isn't anywhere near the likes of Iron Man 3, but it's just a good/average film lacking anything memorable. And that's not good enough when it has to follow something like Infinity War.
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.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror - Season 5 in TV
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Striking Vipers - 5.5
Perhaps in retrospect, season 5 should have held out for some better scripts. All 3 (and notably there are only 3, because of the effort and time put into the stand alone feature length Bandersnatch) episodes seem a little rushed and weak in terms of depth of idea; replacing it with more gloss and production value. You can see the cash on the screen in this episode about the natural progression of VR becoming all about virtual sex, regardless of your sexuality in the real world (or maybe because of it). There is some irony in considering how Black Mirror began feeling very British and here feels entirely consumed by Netflix and American values. Is that a clever statement in itself? Not sure. Either way, I am not a big fan on this one. I mean, it’s fine, but we have come to expect more.
Smithereens - 6
If there are any clever links to anything else going on here, in what I am now thinking of as the Black Mirror Universe, then I haven’t picked up on it. This one feels quite surface, and just a very sad story about a man in distress that wants technology to answer for its responsibilities. Andrew Scott is ever excellent in the lead – man, he can really act! – but the rest of the cast seem a little lifeless and under-written. Perhaps they were trying for something more sharply focused, but, for me, the moral message of don’t use your phone whilst driving, is a bit weak.
Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too - 6.5
Known as the Miley Cyrus episode, because… she’s in it, and so is an electronic “toy” that replicates her personality for her teen fans. There is some intrigue around the nature of fandom and obsession; also the idea of media manipulation in projecting a saleable image that may be far from “the truth”. There is a lighter tone here, though, which betrays the Black Mirror ethos to some extent. It is an entertaining piece: the CGI on the toy Ashley is great, and there is a lovely twist 3/4 in when the true personality of it comes out to hilarious effect. But, on the whole, another under-written piece that leaves us hanging on the precipice of doubt leading into another season.
Perhaps in retrospect, season 5 should have held out for some better scripts. All 3 (and notably there are only 3, because of the effort and time put into the stand alone feature length Bandersnatch) episodes seem a little rushed and weak in terms of depth of idea; replacing it with more gloss and production value. You can see the cash on the screen in this episode about the natural progression of VR becoming all about virtual sex, regardless of your sexuality in the real world (or maybe because of it). There is some irony in considering how Black Mirror began feeling very British and here feels entirely consumed by Netflix and American values. Is that a clever statement in itself? Not sure. Either way, I am not a big fan on this one. I mean, it’s fine, but we have come to expect more.
Smithereens - 6
If there are any clever links to anything else going on here, in what I am now thinking of as the Black Mirror Universe, then I haven’t picked up on it. This one feels quite surface, and just a very sad story about a man in distress that wants technology to answer for its responsibilities. Andrew Scott is ever excellent in the lead – man, he can really act! – but the rest of the cast seem a little lifeless and under-written. Perhaps they were trying for something more sharply focused, but, for me, the moral message of don’t use your phone whilst driving, is a bit weak.
Rachel, Jack and Ashley Too - 6.5
Known as the Miley Cyrus episode, because… she’s in it, and so is an electronic “toy” that replicates her personality for her teen fans. There is some intrigue around the nature of fandom and obsession; also the idea of media manipulation in projecting a saleable image that may be far from “the truth”. There is a lighter tone here, though, which betrays the Black Mirror ethos to some extent. It is an entertaining piece: the CGI on the toy Ashley is great, and there is a lovely twist 3/4 in when the true personality of it comes out to hilarious effect. But, on the whole, another under-written piece that leaves us hanging on the precipice of doubt leading into another season.
JT (287 KP) rated Haywire (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
With all the acting talent that was on offer in this film how could Soderbergh give us such an overrated pile of rubbish and waste said talent in an instant. Thank the lord I didn’t purchase this on Blu-ray as I was originally intending to; otherwise it would have been in the box and back to the shop the following day.
There is nothing wrong with casting a female in the lead role for an action film, it worked for Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider, Wanted and Salt. Here though, Gina Carano, who had no acting talent at all and came from a Muay Thai background meant she would need little training in the fight choreography, but lots in the acting department. It was clear then that no one directed her to that department. Sharing the screen with the likes of Fassbender, Douglas, and McGregor she was well out of place.
Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is a black ops soldier who has been double crossed and is now out for revenge. The plot that is so overdone it is boring with nothing new to offer at all. The film is told from Kane’s point of view to Scott (Michael Angarano), a customer in the diner who she escapes with. Looking at Soderbergh’s back catalogue he’s never really tackled a high octane action flick, and it shows right from the outset. The fight scenes are powerful and well put together but then I’m sure that is down to Carano’s skill and experience as a real life fighter.
Soderbergh tries to make it too slick and too involved. When all we are begging for is a decent car chase or explosion, something to get us off our seats and fist pump the air. This doesn’t happen, even if she does dispatch Fassbender with ease or leaves poor Channing Tatum with a broken arm.
The cast list is admirable, but in their own way they are used sparingly. Douglas’s government agent gets a little screen time, as does the shady contact Antonio Banderas who, like Douglas, is only around for a short space of time. The less said about McGregor the better as quite frankly he was crap! I personally didn’t rate this at all. Soderbergh is a good director but his foray into action was a bit of a let down and a great disappointment.
There is nothing wrong with casting a female in the lead role for an action film, it worked for Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider, Wanted and Salt. Here though, Gina Carano, who had no acting talent at all and came from a Muay Thai background meant she would need little training in the fight choreography, but lots in the acting department. It was clear then that no one directed her to that department. Sharing the screen with the likes of Fassbender, Douglas, and McGregor she was well out of place.
Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is a black ops soldier who has been double crossed and is now out for revenge. The plot that is so overdone it is boring with nothing new to offer at all. The film is told from Kane’s point of view to Scott (Michael Angarano), a customer in the diner who she escapes with. Looking at Soderbergh’s back catalogue he’s never really tackled a high octane action flick, and it shows right from the outset. The fight scenes are powerful and well put together but then I’m sure that is down to Carano’s skill and experience as a real life fighter.
Soderbergh tries to make it too slick and too involved. When all we are begging for is a decent car chase or explosion, something to get us off our seats and fist pump the air. This doesn’t happen, even if she does dispatch Fassbender with ease or leaves poor Channing Tatum with a broken arm.
The cast list is admirable, but in their own way they are used sparingly. Douglas’s government agent gets a little screen time, as does the shady contact Antonio Banderas who, like Douglas, is only around for a short space of time. The less said about McGregor the better as quite frankly he was crap! I personally didn’t rate this at all. Soderbergh is a good director but his foray into action was a bit of a let down and a great disappointment.