Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated 48 HRS (1982) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 48 Hrs starts as Ganz (Remar) gets broken out of jail while on work detail by Billy Bear (Landham), he heads off to clean up old debts leaving cops bodies in his path of destruction. It doesn’t take long for Ganz to clash with detective Jack Cates (Nolte), where Ganz forces Jack into a difficult situation.
Jack must go to prisoner Reggie Hammond (Murphy) a wise cracking con man to help track down Ganz using his street knowledge. In what is an unlikely partnership turns into something special as the two find a way to get to the bottom of the crime.
Thoughts on 48 Hrs
Characters – Jack Cates is a grizzled cop, he gets the job done with his experience keeping him in high regard. He must stop the killer using criminal Reggie Hammond as the best chance to catch this killer. Reggie Hammond is a criminal near the end of his stint in jail, he is wise-cracking fast-talking meaning he can bullshit his way out of any situation he finds himself in. He uses this chance of time out of jail to settle a few scores. Elaine is the girlfriend of Jack who is tired of not making things serious between the two. Ganz is the killer on the loose, after his break from prison, he has a short-temper which causes his itchy trigger finger to fire on any enemy he comes across.
Performances – Nick Nolte is a great choice for a seemingly warn down cop, he takes the non-sense style needed for the role and goes with it. Eddie Murphy was one of the most popular stand-up comedians at the time, this was his film debut and he handed it very well, bringing his own energy to the role which could have been something we have seen before. James Remar is good as a villain because it is a character we have seen before, but he really convinces in this role. There is a negative here, that is Annette O’Toole, which to be fair isn’t her fault because the character is written so poorly
Story – The story follows a cop and a criminal work together to stop another criminal, yes this is a buddy cop movie. We have unlikely partnership which must work together to get the common goal. This is a story we have seen plenty of times since and it seems to be a hit or miss through the years, but this does keep things simple enough to enjoy not looking to throw us any surprises along the way.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is by the book for cops and criminals, nothing is over the top and mostly comes off like you would expect. The crime world is the cop needing to work with the criminal that is the best chance to catch a cop killer. The comedy comes from the odd pairing that must work together.
Settings – The film is set in San Francisco which always seems to be a great location for any crime comedy world to unfold.
Scene of the Movie – Settle this with fists.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Ganz seems a lot easier to catch.
Final Thoughts – This is a good buddy comedy that bought us Eddie Murphy to the big screen. We get the action and comedy without being buried with one too often and most importantly we are entertained.
Overall: Great fun action comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/05/26/franchise-weekend-48-hrs-1982/
Jack must go to prisoner Reggie Hammond (Murphy) a wise cracking con man to help track down Ganz using his street knowledge. In what is an unlikely partnership turns into something special as the two find a way to get to the bottom of the crime.
Thoughts on 48 Hrs
Characters – Jack Cates is a grizzled cop, he gets the job done with his experience keeping him in high regard. He must stop the killer using criminal Reggie Hammond as the best chance to catch this killer. Reggie Hammond is a criminal near the end of his stint in jail, he is wise-cracking fast-talking meaning he can bullshit his way out of any situation he finds himself in. He uses this chance of time out of jail to settle a few scores. Elaine is the girlfriend of Jack who is tired of not making things serious between the two. Ganz is the killer on the loose, after his break from prison, he has a short-temper which causes his itchy trigger finger to fire on any enemy he comes across.
Performances – Nick Nolte is a great choice for a seemingly warn down cop, he takes the non-sense style needed for the role and goes with it. Eddie Murphy was one of the most popular stand-up comedians at the time, this was his film debut and he handed it very well, bringing his own energy to the role which could have been something we have seen before. James Remar is good as a villain because it is a character we have seen before, but he really convinces in this role. There is a negative here, that is Annette O’Toole, which to be fair isn’t her fault because the character is written so poorly
Story – The story follows a cop and a criminal work together to stop another criminal, yes this is a buddy cop movie. We have unlikely partnership which must work together to get the common goal. This is a story we have seen plenty of times since and it seems to be a hit or miss through the years, but this does keep things simple enough to enjoy not looking to throw us any surprises along the way.
Action/Crime/Comedy – The action is by the book for cops and criminals, nothing is over the top and mostly comes off like you would expect. The crime world is the cop needing to work with the criminal that is the best chance to catch a cop killer. The comedy comes from the odd pairing that must work together.
Settings – The film is set in San Francisco which always seems to be a great location for any crime comedy world to unfold.
Scene of the Movie – Settle this with fists.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Ganz seems a lot easier to catch.
Final Thoughts – This is a good buddy comedy that bought us Eddie Murphy to the big screen. We get the action and comedy without being buried with one too often and most importantly we are entertained.
Overall: Great fun action comedy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/05/26/franchise-weekend-48-hrs-1982/
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Equalizer 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Ex-government assassin Robert McCall (Denzel Washington) takes it upon himself to right the wrongs of those who have been exploited. He spends his days driving a Lyft around making chance encounters with people. When one of those people is in need he will go to any length to dispense justice. His brand of justice is brutal and swift but he always give the oppressors the chance to redeem themselves. He does this for people passing though his life but when his best friend, and one of the only former colleges to know his alive, Susan Plummer (Melissa Leo) is killed while on an investigation he sets out to dispatch vengeance rather than justice. He will stop at nothing to find out why his friend was murdered and eliminate those responsible. Robert must first reveal that he is still alive to his former partner Dave York (Pedro Pascal) so he can have access to the investigation. Once he has access the pair will try and find the killers and exact revenge. That is before the killers find them.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
This film is the follow up to 2014’s The Equalizer. It returns both Washington and Leo as well as Director Antoine Fuqua (Shooter, South Paw) and Writer Richard Wenk (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, 16 Blocks) and Bill Pullman, as Brian Plummer. The action scenes in the beginning of the film are really well done. Maybe a spoiler here so caution, the climatic fight scene at the end is less well done and because it is set in a hurricane a lot of it is blurry and hard to follow. It puts you in the setting of the weather but because the action is hand to hand you can really miss a lot of what is going on. It didn’t really work for me personally. The story started out really how I expected and followed the first films story of McCall helping out those who had no other options. This part felt very much like the first film but not redundant. However, it really slowed down when it got into the main story of the film. This part really seemed overly predictable and unoriginal. You, or rather I, could see how the entire movie was laid out and the inevitable conclusion with very few plot twist. This made pace of the film is tough for me. Really action packed at the beginning and then really slow drawn out drama in the middle.
On its own this film is an okay movie. One of many action/crime/mystery films that are made each year. It didn’t really do a good job of distinguishing itself from the rest of the genre. But fans of this type of movie can enjoy how it is heartfelt and warm at times and bloody and action packed at others. The end I discussed above I was not a fan of. Also there is the issue of when you compare it to the original film it really is lacking some key things that the made the first film a success. The villain in this film really leaves something to be desired while the first film had a pretty good antagonist. The pace of the first film was much better and the story flowed more naturally. Sometimes it is really hard to recreate something and I think this film falls way short.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Good Liar (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Mirren and McKellen are acting in 2 different movies
In a time where large comic-book, CGI-infused monster fests are all the rage in the Cineplex, it is a welcome relief to find a cleverly written, acting-rich mystery story featuring two world class actors of "a certain age", defying the odds to make a memorable motion picture.
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...they almost succeeded.
Written by Twin Cities native Jeffrey Hatcher, THE GOOD LIAR tells the tale of a...well...good liar played by Ian McKEllen. His con-man, Roy Courtney, is a roguish scamp, bilking crooks and ne'er do wells out of their money. He then sets his sights on rich Widow Betty McLeish (Helen Mirren) and her millions of dollars.
We spend the first 3/4 of this film following Roy - and his con-man ways - and it is a pleasure to spend that time under the twinkling eyes of Sir Ian McKellen. He plays Roy with a bit of a light touch, driving down into the dirty work whenever he needs to, but spending most of his time outsmarting his opponents with a sly grin, a wry comment and a light step. He cares not for his marks, that is...until he meets Betty. And Mirren and McKellen have the ability to play off each other very well and this would have been a more effective film if both of them were acting in the same sort of film.
For, you see, McKellen is playing in a bit of light drama, landing his acting chops in a style reminiscent of con-man films like THE STING and NOW YOU SEE ME. Mirren, however, (who takes over the last 1/4 of the film) seems to be performing in a heavy drama like SOPHIE'S CHOICE or THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN and I think it was the tone that each of these actors brought to their roles that drove both of these fine actors to this project.
Unfortunately, the dichotomy of the different acting styles, mood and tone ultimately derails this film and brings it down a peg from the austere heights it aspires to be.
I place the blame on Director Bill Condon (Mr. Holmes) who had two very good actors - and an interesting story - and just couldn't find the correct balance point for these actors, and this story. He also is not helped by Hatcher's script which really takes a dark turn (darker than is necessary for the story) that is a bit jarring. If this film wanted to be heavy and dark, then it shouldn't have been so light and fun at the beginning - and Sir Ian's performance needed to be heavier and darker at the beginning. Or it needed to "lighten up a bit" at the end and push Mirren's performance out of the darkness and a bit more into the light.
All-in-all it's a fine, throwback. A two actor film that is in short supplies these days - so well worth seeing. Though I will always pine for what could have been had the tone been evened out between these two veteran performers.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Suicide Tree in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Suicide Tree by Shayla Raquel was a surprisingly good book. It was not quite what I expected but after reading it I am honestly not sure what I was expecting. Early on it talks about the Suicide Tree being a real tree and I could not help but look it up. What I found is that the Suicide Tree is actually a tree called Cerbera Odollam and is found in Asia and India. I find it interesting Knox uses this tree’s nickname for his tag because of the specific properties this tree has. I will leave it up to the interested reader to look up those properties for themselves. The story was so good that I am afraid to say too much without the risk of spoilers.
Trigger Warning: Although I don’t usually feel like I need to add these to my reviews I feel this may be an exception. The death of Knox’s parents is a tragedy and a large part of the story and is brought up very frequently.
Knox Kevel’s parents died in an explosion three years before the story begins. Knox, being almost a computer genius becomes a hacker known as The Suicide Tree while his parents are still alive. After their death, he works for people on the black market and attracts the attention of the FBI. The FBI gets ahold of him twice and he is facing prison time when Arlo Jenson pops in. Arlo wants Knox to work for him and if Knox agrees Arlo will call in a favor with the DA and have Knox’s charges dropped.
Knox ends up flying to Italy with Arlo, in hopes of finding the person who hurt Arlo as a child. Knox and Arlo stay with Norah, Arlo’s sister, and her daughter Jessa. The four of them team up and travel to many well-known cities in Italy trying to discover the truth. The truth about what? Well, you will just have to read The Suicide Tree to find out for yourself.
What I liked most about this book was the interwoven stories of Knox, Arlo, and the mysterious person who harmed Arlo. It was actually hard to find something that I didn’t really like about this book. After thinking about it I would say that the reasoning behind Arlo’s childhood assault (for lack of a better term) was a bit on the anti-climatic side. I was hoping for something a little more in-depth than what was offered.
In all honesty, I believe just about anyone could read this book. There is little in the lines on inappropriate material in this book. The book is also relatively short and does not require a lot of dedication making it perfect for the occasional reader. I would rate this book 4 out of 5 because the plot line was well thought out and there was very little that I questioned after finishing the book. The story was strong and extremely entertaining. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a quick read.
Trigger Warning: Although I don’t usually feel like I need to add these to my reviews I feel this may be an exception. The death of Knox’s parents is a tragedy and a large part of the story and is brought up very frequently.
Knox Kevel’s parents died in an explosion three years before the story begins. Knox, being almost a computer genius becomes a hacker known as The Suicide Tree while his parents are still alive. After their death, he works for people on the black market and attracts the attention of the FBI. The FBI gets ahold of him twice and he is facing prison time when Arlo Jenson pops in. Arlo wants Knox to work for him and if Knox agrees Arlo will call in a favor with the DA and have Knox’s charges dropped.
Knox ends up flying to Italy with Arlo, in hopes of finding the person who hurt Arlo as a child. Knox and Arlo stay with Norah, Arlo’s sister, and her daughter Jessa. The four of them team up and travel to many well-known cities in Italy trying to discover the truth. The truth about what? Well, you will just have to read The Suicide Tree to find out for yourself.
What I liked most about this book was the interwoven stories of Knox, Arlo, and the mysterious person who harmed Arlo. It was actually hard to find something that I didn’t really like about this book. After thinking about it I would say that the reasoning behind Arlo’s childhood assault (for lack of a better term) was a bit on the anti-climatic side. I was hoping for something a little more in-depth than what was offered.
In all honesty, I believe just about anyone could read this book. There is little in the lines on inappropriate material in this book. The book is also relatively short and does not require a lot of dedication making it perfect for the occasional reader. I would rate this book 4 out of 5 because the plot line was well thought out and there was very little that I questioned after finishing the book. The story was strong and extremely entertaining. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a quick read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Into the Woods (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
For those seeking a big dose of magic this holiday season, Disney’s “Into the Woods” aims to deliver just that. Adapted to the silver screen from the original Broadway musical production by Stephen Sondheim, the plot intertwines several of the Grimm Brothers’ fairy tales to create one story.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
At the center of the story is The Baker (James Corden) and The Baker’s Wife (Emily Blunt) who are desperate to break the curse, which keeps them from having a child. The Witch (Meryl Streep) who placed the curse weaves a devious web, entangling all of the characters in a tumultuous adventure.
Streep is terrifying and highly entertaining to watch in her role. Her vocal and facial expressions exude a character of pure evil.
Other characters incorporated into the story include Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), just to name a few.
Disney toned down several aspects of the original plot, which would not have been appropriate for children. However, the story still maintains a racy mix of seriousness and humor. Each scene highlights the absurdities of fairy tales only noticed by adults.
One scene which will have adults rolling with laughter is the sudden duet between Cinderella’s Prince (Chris Pine) and his brother, Rapunzel’s Prince (Billy Magnusson). They sing about the challenges of literally chasing the ladies of their desire and their refusal to acknowledge any possibility of rejection.
Certain scenes test the limits of appropriateness and are almost perverse, or perhaps even err on the side horror.
One example of this is the role of The Wolf (Johnny Depp). As he stalks Little Red Riding Hood through the forest he sings about how she is fresh, supple, and young. Through the lyrics and the choice to use a human in the role, rather than a CGI wolf, a strange glimmer of pedophilia surfaces. This is taken a step further when The Wolf reveals a jacket full of candy in his attempt to lure the child.
The element of horror enters the film in a scene where Cinderella’s Stepmother cuts the feet of the ugly stepsisters to try and force them into the glass slipper offered by the Prince. This is not graphically shown. However, it is implied as she waves around a knife and sings about it.
Despite a few of these adult twists, the film should be fun for the whole family to watch. Just keep in mind that, like the original tales, some short scenes may be a bit horrifying for young children.
As is tradition with fairy tales, the good comes with the bad. The moral messages of each fairy tale are combined into one larger message: One should be careful what they wish for, because in the grander scheme of life the ramifications of those wishes may be unforeseen.
It is also a visually stunning piece of work. Nothing comes off as overdone or cheesy. The tales truly come to life and transport viewers into a land of fantasy.
The majority of the film is very exciting and fast moving. That being said, the film is lengthy with a runtime of 124 minutes. Unfortunately, the last 30 minutes begins to drag on and feel tiring. This would have been an easy fix if perhaps the last few songs had been shortened, or the last thirty minutes was cut completely.
All in all, the film is a truly magical cinematic experience. I give “Into the Woods” 4 out of 5 stars.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Men: Supernovas in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Holy cow!! I read this back when it originally when it was published, back in '04. Or rather, I didn't read it, as it was at a time where I was starting to tire of the post-MESSIAH COMPLEX/SECOND COMING X-Men world. I felt Utopia was a good idea, but it never truly gelled in the same way that as the Mutant Nation that is Krakoa in Hickman's "Dawn of X". And dear God, I can stand most things to some degree, but I still <u>can not</u> accept Namor as a mutant! So, long story short (really?? now?? after all that??), re-visiting X-MEN: SUPERNOVA was a good read!
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
First thing I enjoyed was the fact that this was where the Children of the Vault first come into play! Such a cool-assed concept, so cool that, sixteen years later (oh come on, dear man, time doesn't even apply the Children of the Vault!), Jonathan Hickman brought them back in X-MEN #4! Brilliant!! And, seriously? I don't a number of X-fans really <b>abhor</b> the whole concept of the Children of the Vault and any appearances/re-appearances they show up in!
While I was not as much of a fan of Carey's X-Men contributions as I wanted to be (another reason I dropped X-Men in '04), I quite loved this collection, as the first half of the book is the 6-part "Supernovas" story, while the remainder was the next few issues in that run of Carey's that seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the Children of the Vault or anything <i>Supernova</i>ish! Yeah, sorry to anyone expecting this review to be about the whole book, but I checked out as soon as "Supernova" ended.
One of the things that really drew me back to this was how tight Chris Bachalo's art was for the "Supernova" story arc! He's one of those artists that I have found people either like or definitely <b>not</b> like his style! Me? I've liked him since his days during GENERATION X (man, I still love the way he drew Emma Frost!!) in the 90's!
I've seen some of his recent work, and while I don't love all of it, I still share a fondness for unique way he draws! And, as I said, I feel that this was some of his best! From his tricked out as hell action scenes to his capturing of the oddness and otherworldliness of the Children of the Vault, these pages do <u>not</u> disappoint visually!
Overall, a good read that was not bogged down by being set in and around Utopia or any of the usual bickering and <i>hot mess</i> was any of the X-books written at that time! Heck, you may enjoy the story in the second half of the book! And best case scenario, if you see it on sale (whether digitally or in print), pick it up for Bachalo's amazingly awesome art!
Ok, gang, Imma done! We can resume the craziness and hard-to-believe-it's-actually-happening that is the COVID-19 pandemic! Oh, and you're welcome for the distraction I provided..! :)
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Wall (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
US Ranger Sniper, Staff Sargent Shane Matthews (John Cena), and his spotter, Sargent Allen “Eyes” Isaac, are investigating a distress call in the hot Iraqi desert above an oil pipeline construction area. From their camouflaged position they can see several dead bodies. They have waited close to 18 hours while sitting and observing the bodies and landscape, trying to determine what happened. Matthews decides the dead men below them must have been killed by a raid and after the hours of waiting he leaves the covered position to investigate up close. While Isaac believes that there is a chance this could be the work of a skilled sniper, he reluctantly agrees to let Matthews go.
As Isaac watches from cover Mathews surveys the carnage from up close and quickly realizes that Isaac must have been right. All of the men below were killed with skilled shots to the head. Before he can find cover or find where the shooter was positioned Mathews is shot in the stomach and falls to the ground. Isaac rushes to his aide but as soon as he gets close to his comrade he is shot in the knee. As shots rain down on him Isaac dives for cover behind a dilapidated wall. Now he is stuck behind fragile cover bleeding with his partner unable to move due to his wounds. Isaac scrabbles to radio for help but he only finds his radio antenna has been shot off. He has no idea where the shots came from only that he may be in the only safe place. Isaac is now suck behind a wall with no way to get to his severely wounded friend or call in reinforcements. Then over his short range two-way radio a voice can be heard and it’s not Matthews or help…it’s the enemy sniper.
The Wall is a suspense film directed by Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, Fair Game and Mr. and Mrs. Smith). Overall the small cast gave good performances. I thought that John Cena did a good job in a limited role in this film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did an adequate job, but since he was on screen by himself for the majority of the film I thought his performance was at times week. He was also really compelling at times which is why I think overall it was adequate. I think it was a good story but the build up to the end lacked the true suspense that could have made it a great story. I just didn’t have the ending that really made me sit on the edge of my seat. It felt like what was happening was inevitable. I commend the originality of the overall story. But when I am going to watch a suspenseful film I want just a little bit more. To me it lacked an edge and really captivating moment at the end. One of the things the film got right was how realistic it felt. The cinematography was gritty and fit the story really well.
Overall I came out of this film feeling good but thought that it was missing a little something. Worth a second viewing sometime in the future but probably save it for video or on demand.
As Isaac watches from cover Mathews surveys the carnage from up close and quickly realizes that Isaac must have been right. All of the men below were killed with skilled shots to the head. Before he can find cover or find where the shooter was positioned Mathews is shot in the stomach and falls to the ground. Isaac rushes to his aide but as soon as he gets close to his comrade he is shot in the knee. As shots rain down on him Isaac dives for cover behind a dilapidated wall. Now he is stuck behind fragile cover bleeding with his partner unable to move due to his wounds. Isaac scrabbles to radio for help but he only finds his radio antenna has been shot off. He has no idea where the shots came from only that he may be in the only safe place. Isaac is now suck behind a wall with no way to get to his severely wounded friend or call in reinforcements. Then over his short range two-way radio a voice can be heard and it’s not Matthews or help…it’s the enemy sniper.
The Wall is a suspense film directed by Doug Liman (Edge of Tomorrow, Fair Game and Mr. and Mrs. Smith). Overall the small cast gave good performances. I thought that John Cena did a good job in a limited role in this film. Aaron Taylor-Johnson did an adequate job, but since he was on screen by himself for the majority of the film I thought his performance was at times week. He was also really compelling at times which is why I think overall it was adequate. I think it was a good story but the build up to the end lacked the true suspense that could have made it a great story. I just didn’t have the ending that really made me sit on the edge of my seat. It felt like what was happening was inevitable. I commend the originality of the overall story. But when I am going to watch a suspenseful film I want just a little bit more. To me it lacked an edge and really captivating moment at the end. One of the things the film got right was how realistic it felt. The cinematography was gritty and fit the story really well.
Overall I came out of this film feeling good but thought that it was missing a little something. Worth a second viewing sometime in the future but probably save it for video or on demand.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 18, 2019
Not quite (Inter)stellar...
Ad Astra is a discreet sci-fi film set in an unspecified near future, and is the claustrophobic, deliberate and tense story of Major Roy McBride (played intentionally one-dimensional by Brad Pitt), a soldier and an astronaut, recruited to a top secret mission revolving around the father he never knew, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
This is one of those films where you start watching it and find yourself pleasantly surprised at how little the trailer actually gave away. The story makes a couple of significant changes in direction throughout the 122min runtime. It begins as a standard semi-sci-fi affair, similar in tone and approach to "Arrival (2016)". It's a slow build, yet has comfortable pacing. Then, it takes inspiration from "2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)", "Gravity (2013)" and even "Alien (1979)", when a deep space distress call provides a brief diversion and introduces some horror undertones. Finally, it settles in for the home run, turning into a 'one man against the clock' thriller.
Pitt does a nice job of establishing the character's mindset early on, which is a primary focus of the movie. It's never so much about what's happening as it is about how it's affecting him personally. A big deal is made about how he's this emotionless, unflappable super astronaut, which is perhaps a little unbelievable at times, but serves to amplify the significance of the character's inevitable struggle with how things play out in the final act.
The soundtrack is especially clever throughout, guiding your own emotions with the peaks and troughs of dramatic music, helping build the tension when it needed to.
What I liked about this was that it reminded me of how "Minority Report (2002)" was made, in that it's a sci-fi film, but it doesn't play on the fact it's a sci-fi film. It carries on as if the setting is everyone's normal, which allows you to focus on the story without the distraction of this fantastic, make-believe world going on around you.
However, for all the things I can say it did well, it ultimately fell short of being anything other than a poor imitation of those who have come before it. Inevitable comparisons will be made with "Interstellar (2014)", "The Martian (2015)", and even "Event Horizon (1997)". It took clear inspiration from these genre heavyweights, taking elements of each and making them its own, but never quite does anything as well as these movies did. A prime example of being the jack of all trades and the master of none.
There's never really a true attachment to the characters. Every word is uttered with morose. The locations look both beautiful and barren at the same time - perhaps an unintentional reflection of the movie itself.
This wasn't a particularly bad film. It was okay. It just suffered because it spent way too long trying to be like something else, but never quite figured out exactly what it wanted to be like. The result is a film that, much like the story, drifts aimlessly through a void it never quite understood how to fill. A movie to watch if you're in the mood for something that requires an investment of your time, but don't have access to anything better.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated Outland Exile: Book 1 of Old Men and Infidels in Books
Jan 9, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Contains spoilers, click to show
Outland Exile Book 1: Old Men and Infidels by W. Clark Boutwell was very enjoyable to read after I got into it a bit. The book was somewhat confusing to start out but the author unfolds the story layer by layer to slowly explain the world that the main character lives in. The vocabulary in this book made me consult a dictionary a few different times to check words that were strange to me, an unusual occurrence for someone who reads frequently.
The main reason that it was hard for me to initially enjoy the book was because of the authors use of short phrases. These phrases made the reading feel choppy and prevented a nice even flow. I believe this was mainly a problem because it frequently took the immersion away from the story, and jarringly forced me back into the real world as I re-read a section to see if it made more sense. I feel that many readers enjoy the immersion in a fictional world when reading a good book, so this may be a bit of an issue for some.
W. Clark Boutwell also appears to have a very good education, possibly with a large focus on the English language. The reason that I think this might be the case is because of the vocabulary found in the book, some of which seemed unnecessary. Words such as “metaphoric” “adroitly” and “remonstrations” were used, much to my initial confusion. Then there was also “pantomimed”, “sere”, and “realpolitik” that had me searching for a dictionary. On top of the strange wording at times the author also used terms such as “snakelike” and “warlike” with frequency. The amount these words were used make them almost feel overused or like errors.
The amazing plot-line of the story also offers a few different lessons that many people will have to learn in their lives. The first of these lessons is the fact that not everyone, including the government, is not always operating in your best interest. It shows that often the people who are considered to be higher-ups are more worried about themselves and their advancement than the ‘little people’ that they hurt along the way. The book also shows that a simple life is often happier than a technology-filled one, proving that the technology that is supposed to be bringing us together is also causing us to lose touch with other people at the same time. Finally, it brings to light an idea that some might find difficult to accept. That fact would be that not everything you grow up believing is necessarily the truth and that history is almost always written by the winners and the loser’s voice gets lost.
During the course of the story Malila, a Lieutenant for the Unity is sent out to Sunprairie Station with a group of bodyguards in order to repair the station. She then finds herself in the hands of Jesse Johnstone and making her way to Kentucky and stopping at a village across the Ohio River. It is here that she starts to learn just how lacking her life in the Unity was. She also learns just how much of a captive she was in her “free” Unity and how much of her supposed life there was all just an illusion.
What I liked best was watching Malila expand and grow as an individual. The author’s writing made me feel like I actually knew the characters. When tragedy struck I felt real worry and concern for them and did not want to stop reading until I knew what happened to them. On the other side, I least liked the fact that I almost gave up on reading the book early because of how slow and choppy the writing felt. The use of the obscure words made me believe there were multiple misspellings only to find that the words were just typically unused.
The target readers for this story would be young adults, starting at about high school aged and older. Concepts of pleasure sex and a few mentions of rape make this book unsuitable for most younger readers. With all of this being said I would give this book the rating 3 out of 4 because even with it being hard to get into the story was very enjoyable. The plot-line is strong and the life lessons the Malila learns are things that most people should probably learn at some point in their lives. I look forward to reading the rest of the series as it comes out.
The main reason that it was hard for me to initially enjoy the book was because of the authors use of short phrases. These phrases made the reading feel choppy and prevented a nice even flow. I believe this was mainly a problem because it frequently took the immersion away from the story, and jarringly forced me back into the real world as I re-read a section to see if it made more sense. I feel that many readers enjoy the immersion in a fictional world when reading a good book, so this may be a bit of an issue for some.
W. Clark Boutwell also appears to have a very good education, possibly with a large focus on the English language. The reason that I think this might be the case is because of the vocabulary found in the book, some of which seemed unnecessary. Words such as “metaphoric” “adroitly” and “remonstrations” were used, much to my initial confusion. Then there was also “pantomimed”, “sere”, and “realpolitik” that had me searching for a dictionary. On top of the strange wording at times the author also used terms such as “snakelike” and “warlike” with frequency. The amount these words were used make them almost feel overused or like errors.
The amazing plot-line of the story also offers a few different lessons that many people will have to learn in their lives. The first of these lessons is the fact that not everyone, including the government, is not always operating in your best interest. It shows that often the people who are considered to be higher-ups are more worried about themselves and their advancement than the ‘little people’ that they hurt along the way. The book also shows that a simple life is often happier than a technology-filled one, proving that the technology that is supposed to be bringing us together is also causing us to lose touch with other people at the same time. Finally, it brings to light an idea that some might find difficult to accept. That fact would be that not everything you grow up believing is necessarily the truth and that history is almost always written by the winners and the loser’s voice gets lost.
During the course of the story Malila, a Lieutenant for the Unity is sent out to Sunprairie Station with a group of bodyguards in order to repair the station. She then finds herself in the hands of Jesse Johnstone and making her way to Kentucky and stopping at a village across the Ohio River. It is here that she starts to learn just how lacking her life in the Unity was. She also learns just how much of a captive she was in her “free” Unity and how much of her supposed life there was all just an illusion.
What I liked best was watching Malila expand and grow as an individual. The author’s writing made me feel like I actually knew the characters. When tragedy struck I felt real worry and concern for them and did not want to stop reading until I knew what happened to them. On the other side, I least liked the fact that I almost gave up on reading the book early because of how slow and choppy the writing felt. The use of the obscure words made me believe there were multiple misspellings only to find that the words were just typically unused.
The target readers for this story would be young adults, starting at about high school aged and older. Concepts of pleasure sex and a few mentions of rape make this book unsuitable for most younger readers. With all of this being said I would give this book the rating 3 out of 4 because even with it being hard to get into the story was very enjoyable. The plot-line is strong and the life lessons the Malila learns are things that most people should probably learn at some point in their lives. I look forward to reading the rest of the series as it comes out.