Search
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Kingsman: The Golden Circle (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Welcome back, chaps
Kingsman: The Secret Service was one of the surprise hits of 2014. Marketed poorly by an unassuming set of trailers, the end result was a film as big a surprise as Guardians of the Galaxy was.
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
We all know what happened. Kingsman senior grossed over $400million worldwide and a sequel was soon greenlit with a much bigger budget and a marketing effort worth of the first film.
But has some of that old-school charm been lost in the transition to high-budget movie event of the summer?
With their headquarters destroyed and the world held hostage by a villainous drug lord (Julianne Moore), members of Kingsman find new allies when they discover a spy organization in the United States known as Statesman. In an adventure that tests their strength and wits, the elite agents band together to battle a ruthless enemy and save the day, something that seems to be a bit of a habit for Eggsy (Taron Egerton) of late.
Thankfully, I’m pleased to tell you that Matthew Vaughn’s follow-up, while not bettering its predecessor, manages to stay away from many of the sequel pitfalls we tend to see nowadays.
Opening with a fantastically filmed cab ride through London’s narrow streets, the first sequence sets up the movie perfectly. This is a rollercoaster ride – loud, at times exhausting but completely and utterly exhilarating.
That familiar cast we grew to love in the first film return including the not-so-secret return of Colin Firth’s Harry. It’s disappointing to have seen the big reveal of his survival from Samuel L Jackson’s bullet in the trailers, but it’s still a welcome return and a smart move by the writers – even if the circumstances surrounding his well-being are a little farfetched.
Taron Egerton is once again on top form and Mark Strong is ever-reliable as intelligence agent, Merlin. Of the newcomers, Channing Tatum, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges make a small, but noticeable impact on proceedings though I would’ve liked to have seen them a little more throughout the 140-minute runtime.
You’re right to gasp. Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a good 10 minutes or so longer than its predecessor and while the action is choreographed to the same exceptional standard of its forbearer, it does feel like a long film.
Nevertheless, if there’s one thing Matthew Vaughn knows how to direct, it’s action. The increased budget this time around means our heroes embark on a globetrotting mission that includes Cambodia, Italy, the US and of course Blighty. The cinematography is wonderful with the Cambodian lair of our main villain being a particular highlight.
Speaking of which, Julianne Moore is absolutely sublime. Described by Vaughn himself as “Martha Stewart on crack”, she is right up there with Samuel L Jackson’s outlandish Richmond Valentine. Watch out for a surprise turn from Elton John that will have you in stitches whenever the film switches to Moore’s mountain-top lair.
With this and President Alma Coin from The Hunger Games on her CV, she’s proving a great choice to play wicked characters – she’s certainly got the acting chops for it.
Overall, there’s far too much in Kingsman: The Golden Circle to talk about in one review, but it’s fair to say this sequel is a big success. With beautifully choreographed action and some cracking performances, it’s more than a candidate for best film of the year. Flawed? Yes. But you’ll be having too much fun to notice. Bring on the sequel.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/09/21/kingsman-the-golden-circle-review/
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated The Glitch in Books
May 31, 2018
Not worth the hype
So, when I first heard about The Glitch, I was all like - Wow. What cool idea for a story! This is going to be awesome. I need to get my hands on this one! And then I read it, and I was all like - WTF did I just read? Did someone slip me drugs? Did I miss something?
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.
Shelley is like one of those Steve Jobs-esque corporate tech CEO robots who is basically all work and zero play. Her company is called Conch, and is sort of like a Siri for everyday life that clips onto your ear. Even Steve jobs seems like a wuss compared to Shelley. She's stiff, and brusque and her marriage and friendships are more of business arrangements it seems, as well as having children (Nova and Blazer?!? ummm what?), she has ZERO social life - and she likes it all this way. In fact she thrives on it.
The story starts out with Nova going missing on the beach and her and her husband CASUALLY STROLL around on the beach looking for her while they are both ON THE PHONE taking conference calls. I cannot even believe people like this might exist. Then a "glitch" happens with the Conch product and weirdness ensues. I'm all for weird books. I don't base a books review on unlikeable characters. In fact Shelley is written PERFECTLY. Elisabeth Cohen is apparently a technical writer by trade and she shines at developing Shelley as a character. Her writing is SO smart, and sharp and I LOVE the way she writes. I'm giving a slight pass since it's her first novel because the words are there - and they are exquisite! They just need some finesse in arranging the story better. But the themes here all ALL over the place. Kidnapping? Corporate espionage? Time travel? Lightning? Weird romantic feeling for coworkers and nannies? Women's empowerment? Technology? Work/Life/Mom balance? I had enough trouble with being in Shelley's head with her ramblings and descriptions - thoroughly written, and passionately descriptive - but the story itself just fell flat.
And the ending, just really unsatisfying. And a bit unbelievable knowing how hardcore Shelley was about most things - It was like she just conceded and gave up? Which seemed so out of character.. There were several times I was like "No WAY this type A personality would let this chick in her house!" and "Why isn't she calling the cops!" It was like you knew so precisely who Shelley was by the incredible character development of how robotic and precise her actions would be and then - what? Huh? What just happened? I'm still just really confused.
I hate when this happens. I find out about a book that sounds so ridiculously awesome that i rush out to find it wherever I can immediately. The description when I first heard of the book had a question in it like "What would you do if you met your younger self?" I want to read THAT book. That's what I thought I was reading and where it was going, but it turned into this whole other story that went somewhere else entirely. There was so much promise and potential and I'm pretty bummed. It wasn't worth all the hype I've been hearing.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Outsider in Books
Oct 7, 2018
From the Inside, Out
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book opens like an episode of “Law and Order: SVU” not suitable for primetime.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
A gruesome crime, involving a child (and complete with elements of cannibalism) is committed. The alleged murderer, damned by seemingly undeniable forensic proof, is then very publicly apprehended. And then the twists and turns begin. Though eyewitnesses also put beloved schoolteacher Terry Maitland at the scene of the horrific crime, the accused was actually at a conference in another city, where he was seen on camera no less. Then comes a series of events that threatens not only the man’s quality of life but his very existence.
The novel then expands into a whodunnit with a notably creepy character, a morphing being known as the Outsider. As the true perpetrator of this and other crimes against children and their families, he is at once very human and very otherworldly.
This novel is set in the southwest, which is an unusual departure for Stephen King. Therefore, the descriptions of places were perhaps a bit less detailed and authentic than I would have liked. But having lived in San Antonio, I can say he did a pretty good job and the scenery offered certainly didn’t detract from the story.
In some respects, the monster in the Outsider echoed back to Kafka’s The Metamorphosis. The descriptions of the constantly morphing Outsider character had an eerie element. In the end, the flesh of the outsider consisted of nightmarish worms. And there was a particularly nasty substance he used to morph into his intended victims, some unidentifiable black substance which seems the stuff nightmares are made of. Appropriate, since he went around “eating sorrow” like some unhinged emo kid. Leaving entire families in his wake with his vile need to satiate himself. In his default shape, he resembled a man with “straws for eyes” which is haunting, but not nearly as terrifying as some of King’s other humanoid villains.
This book had several scenes that are now ingrained in my memory. The scene that stole the show for me was when bereaved Arlene Peterson, the victim’s mother, pours funeral leftovers on her head before ultimately succumbing to a heart attack. But the arraignment scene was definitely one that offered more action and intrigue than previously seen in the book. Chaos is one of the things King does best, and this section was remarkable. The book up to this point dragged a little, but the arraignment reigns as a pivotal point that brings many horrors sharply into focus.
I especially enjoyed the murder mystery elements of the book, as I am a sucker for a good detective story. Holly, an investigator who worked with lead detective Ralph Anderson, was my favorite character. Throughout the novel, she is depicted as smart, shrewd, and socially inept. She is also a tad obsessive-compulsive, which I related to on a personal level.
Throughout, the book seems to focus on the dual nature of man, especially in the concluding scene. It seems every man in his lifetime, by choice or fate, wears more than one face. The Outsider was a quality thriller and mystery. It is at once mysterious and devastating, and a testament to the tenacity of the human spirit.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2:HRS (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Fun Family Film
Story: 2: Hrs starts as we meet teenage slacker Tim (Jarvis) who spends his time painting London with graffiti with his best friends Vic (Smith) and Alf (Fofana). While on the school trip to a museum, the three sneak off and interrupt a science conference being hosted by conman Groad (Allen) who has created a machine that can tell when the living object inside will die.
Tim goes in the machine only to learn that he only has 2 hours left to live, left shocked, Tim sets out a small bucket list of achievable targets and while the friends target these goals, they are being chased down by the people behind the experiment who want to research and make sure Tim dies on time.
Thoughts on 2: Hrs
Characters – Tim is a school slacker with a talent for graffiti, he has been acting out because of the death of his father, which has changed him, his friends see this and his rebellious ways puts his life in danger when he learns he only has 2 hours to leave from spending time in a machine which can perform a prediction of when someone will die. He must go through a life lesson as this film unfolds. Vic and Alf are the two supportive friends, that join him on the adventure, we don’t learn too much about them without giving away spoilers. Groad is the businessman/conman that is running the operation, he hides in his apartment with fake backdrops as he conducts meetings. He is always looking to create a good face story for any PR situation. We also have the younger sister Shona to Tim that wants to look up to him only to be left disappointed most of the time and the two bumbling idiots trying to catch the teenagers.
Performances – Harry Jarvis in the leading role does a very good job, we see how his character must change over the course of the film ad he shows us this in his performance. Ella-Rae Smith and Alhaji Fofana are both good in their supporting roles while Keith Allen gives us a good performance as the shady character we see behind the curtain about.
Story – The story follows three friends that decide to ditch a school trip and end up on there on adventure after being caught in the middle of an adventure when one of them learns they only have two hours to live. This does sound like a simple fun adventure family film, which it is, though it does have deeper meaning for Tim who must learn to life lessons in this time while dealing with his own personal tragedy after not doing so when it happened.
Family – This film keeps the films moments all around the family problems Tim is facing, it keeps everything PG even with jokes adults will understand.
Settings – The film is set around London, which is good because it shows how difficult losing a parent can be in the busy city and how easy it is to rebel.
Scene of the Movie – Poetry competition.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That pet, what was that?
Final Thoughts – This is a family film that can be enjoyed by everyone, it has good laughs, a smart character development story and a nice adventure.
Overall: Family film for all to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/05/2-hrs-2018/
Story: 2: Hrs starts as we meet teenage slacker Tim (Jarvis) who spends his time painting London with graffiti with his best friends Vic (Smith) and Alf (Fofana). While on the school trip to a museum, the three sneak off and interrupt a science conference being hosted by conman Groad (Allen) who has created a machine that can tell when the living object inside will die.
Tim goes in the machine only to learn that he only has 2 hours left to live, left shocked, Tim sets out a small bucket list of achievable targets and while the friends target these goals, they are being chased down by the people behind the experiment who want to research and make sure Tim dies on time.
Thoughts on 2: Hrs
Characters – Tim is a school slacker with a talent for graffiti, he has been acting out because of the death of his father, which has changed him, his friends see this and his rebellious ways puts his life in danger when he learns he only has 2 hours to leave from spending time in a machine which can perform a prediction of when someone will die. He must go through a life lesson as this film unfolds. Vic and Alf are the two supportive friends, that join him on the adventure, we don’t learn too much about them without giving away spoilers. Groad is the businessman/conman that is running the operation, he hides in his apartment with fake backdrops as he conducts meetings. He is always looking to create a good face story for any PR situation. We also have the younger sister Shona to Tim that wants to look up to him only to be left disappointed most of the time and the two bumbling idiots trying to catch the teenagers.
Performances – Harry Jarvis in the leading role does a very good job, we see how his character must change over the course of the film ad he shows us this in his performance. Ella-Rae Smith and Alhaji Fofana are both good in their supporting roles while Keith Allen gives us a good performance as the shady character we see behind the curtain about.
Story – The story follows three friends that decide to ditch a school trip and end up on there on adventure after being caught in the middle of an adventure when one of them learns they only have two hours to live. This does sound like a simple fun adventure family film, which it is, though it does have deeper meaning for Tim who must learn to life lessons in this time while dealing with his own personal tragedy after not doing so when it happened.
Family – This film keeps the films moments all around the family problems Tim is facing, it keeps everything PG even with jokes adults will understand.
Settings – The film is set around London, which is good because it shows how difficult losing a parent can be in the busy city and how easy it is to rebel.
Scene of the Movie – Poetry competition.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That pet, what was that?
Final Thoughts – This is a family film that can be enjoyed by everyone, it has good laughs, a smart character development story and a nice adventure.
Overall: Family film for all to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/05/2-hrs-2018/
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Confessions of a Queen B* (The Queen B*, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
<b><i>I received this book for free from Author in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.</i></b>
<b>I am in love with that title</b> it's probably what got me interested in reading this in the first place. The first in Crista McHugh's <i>The Queen B*</i> series focuses on Alexis Wyndham, a high school senior who got bullied for years and decided to start a blog to expose the popular crowd at her school. Using her status as the Queen Bitch, Alexis primarily helps out other students who get bullied.
It goes without saying: <b><i>Confessions of a Queen B*</i> is quite literally a book with many common high school stereotypes and clichés.</b> There's the Queen Bee with her tiaras, entourage, and more often than not the head cheerleader. There's the star quarterback of the football team who probably has a six pack (if not, a flat stomach), dating the head cheerleader, and seems to have a perfect life with colleges all around trying to recruit him. There are the "freaks" and the "outcasts," who really have a different perspective on life but the Queen Bee says they're completely abnormal and probably asks "Why are you even here on this planet?" on a daily basis.
<b>The book has it all high school stereotypes wise.</b> Not exactly my type high schools in books are full of immature drama and I hate dramatic books unless you're highly entertaining. But <b>every once in a while, a book set in high school with all the bells and whistles comes around and sneakily gets into my good graces, even if it has immature moments here and there committed by the characters.</b>
<i>Confessions of a Queen B*</i> is just <b>a fun book to read and I enjoyed every moment. You see all sides of Alexis the sarcastic and snarky one that's public, and the secretly hidden side where she's actually a nice and down to earth person. You also see all sides of Brett the whole star quarterback with the perfect life, and the secretly hidden side where he's an absolute inner geek</b> who will probably like Sherlock and <a title="Read Ella's Confessions of a Queen B* review" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-confessions-of-a-queen-b-by-crista-mchugh/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">sweep Ella's heart away (damage is already done there)</a>. Woe is to Brett if he ever reveals it out to the world.
Their relationship is pretty typical the popular falling for the smart but it's quite realistic. <b>There are complications and ups and downs that stop Brett's and Alexis' romance from falling into THE ugly trap.</b> There are heartfelt moments and banters between the two-layered throughout the book <b>it's adorable and I ship them.</b>
The whole x-rated videos might be a subtle plot, but I was too busy enjoying myself to even care I already have a soft spot for this book.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-confessions-of-a-queen-b-by-crista-mchugh-review-and-giveaway/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<b>I am in love with that title</b> it's probably what got me interested in reading this in the first place. The first in Crista McHugh's <i>The Queen B*</i> series focuses on Alexis Wyndham, a high school senior who got bullied for years and decided to start a blog to expose the popular crowd at her school. Using her status as the Queen Bitch, Alexis primarily helps out other students who get bullied.
It goes without saying: <b><i>Confessions of a Queen B*</i> is quite literally a book with many common high school stereotypes and clichés.</b> There's the Queen Bee with her tiaras, entourage, and more often than not the head cheerleader. There's the star quarterback of the football team who probably has a six pack (if not, a flat stomach), dating the head cheerleader, and seems to have a perfect life with colleges all around trying to recruit him. There are the "freaks" and the "outcasts," who really have a different perspective on life but the Queen Bee says they're completely abnormal and probably asks "Why are you even here on this planet?" on a daily basis.
<b>The book has it all high school stereotypes wise.</b> Not exactly my type high schools in books are full of immature drama and I hate dramatic books unless you're highly entertaining. But <b>every once in a while, a book set in high school with all the bells and whistles comes around and sneakily gets into my good graces, even if it has immature moments here and there committed by the characters.</b>
<i>Confessions of a Queen B*</i> is just <b>a fun book to read and I enjoyed every moment. You see all sides of Alexis the sarcastic and snarky one that's public, and the secretly hidden side where she's actually a nice and down to earth person. You also see all sides of Brett the whole star quarterback with the perfect life, and the secretly hidden side where he's an absolute inner geek</b> who will probably like Sherlock and <a title="Read Ella's Confessions of a Queen B* review" href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/review-confessions-of-a-queen-b-by-crista-mchugh/"; target="_blank" rel="noopener">sweep Ella's heart away (damage is already done there)</a>. Woe is to Brett if he ever reveals it out to the world.
Their relationship is pretty typical the popular falling for the smart but it's quite realistic. <b>There are complications and ups and downs that stop Brett's and Alexis' romance from falling into THE ugly trap.</b> There are heartfelt moments and banters between the two-layered throughout the book <b>it's adorable and I ship them.</b>
The whole x-rated videos might be a subtle plot, but I was too busy enjoying myself to even care I already have a soft spot for this book.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/blog-tour-confessions-of-a-queen-b-by-crista-mchugh-review-and-giveaway/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Sting (1973) in Movies
Mar 29, 2020
On my list of All Time Favorite Films
I'll come right out and say it - the 1973 Academy Award winning film for Best Picture, THE STING, is one of the greatest films of all time. It's well written, well acted, well directed with a memorable musical score and characters, situations, costumes and set design that become richer over time and through repeated viewings.
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Set in Chicago in the gangster-ridden, depression era mid-1930's, THE STING tells the tale of two con man who join forces for the ultimate con of a vile N.Y. Gangster who is responsible for killing a friend of theirs.
From everything I have read about it, the script by David S. Ward (who won an Oscar for his work) arrived pretty much finished. He shaped the story of the con men - and the myriad pieces of misdirection - fully before shopping it around to the studios. Universal jumped all over it and tabbed veteran Director George Roy Hill (BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID) to helm the picture. Hill - being no dummy - saw this as a vehicle to re-team Newman and Redford (stars of Butch Cassidy) and the rest...as they say...is history.
Newman and Redford are perfectly cast as veteran grifter Henry Gondorff (Newman) and up and coming grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford). They have an ease of playing off of each other - each one complimenting the other one - both giving in their scenes with the other one which makes the scenes more rich and alive. They are joined by a veritable "who's who" of late '60's/early '70's character actors - Harold Gould, Eileen Brennan, Charles Durning, Ray Walston and Dana Elcar - all of them bring their "A" game and they are fun to watch. Special notice should be made to Robert Earl Jones (father of James Earl Jones) as Luther, the character who's fate propels the plot forward.
But...none of this would work if you didn't have a "bad guy" that was interesting to watch - and to root against - and bad guys don't get much better...and badder...than Robert Shaw's Doyle Lonnegan. Shaw plays Lonnegan as a physically tough boss who doesn't suffer failure, but is smart enough to avoid obvious traps. He is a worthy adversary of Gondorff and Hooker's and it is fun to watch Newman, Redford and Shaw play off each other. One other note - it was with this performance that Universal recommended Shaw to young Director Stephen Spielberg for his "shark flick" JAWS.
Edith Head won her 8th (and last) Oscar for the magnificent period costumes in this film and Marvin Hamlisch won for the Music - a surprising hit on the pop charts of re-channeled Scott Joplin tunes. The set design won an Oscar - as did the Director, George Roy Hill. All in all, the film won 7 out of the 11 Oscars it was nominated for (Redford was nominated for Best Actor, but did not win).
THE STING is a well crafted film. One that tells a timeless story and that stands the test of time as a testament of how great of an achievement in film this is. It is one of my All Time favorites.
Letter Grade: the rare A+
5 stars (out of 5) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated A Good Day To Die Hard (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
To me, the original Die Hard (1988) was the birth of the modern action movie that we now take for granted. We have a seeming normal everyman in Bruce Willis, playing a likable but tough as nails NYPD cop John McClane, who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. (Yes, Story if his life.) The street smart hero uses whatever resources he could muster to become a thorn in the side of an intelligent and sophisticated villain, while dropping a few comedy one-liners along the way. This being the 5th installment of the Die Hard series the formula seems to be working, only not as well as past films in the series.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does well. The soon to be 58 Willis is still as likeable as ever as John McClane. The film does a good job of making fun of his age just enough to make you feel that he is old, but not TOO old. The improbable action is as big as ever which leads to mass destruction in typical John McClane fashion. This action helps the 97min runtime feel fast paced and fun. Also Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher) plays John’s son CIA agent Jack McClane and actually plays strong against Willis. The whole father-son dynamic is interesting and gives some new depth to this familiar character. This dynamic leads up to a redeeming moment for John McClane that makes you wonder if this is Willis’s swan song in the series and if the reins are being passed to Courtney?
As a fan of the series there are many things this film does not do well. Perhaps the most notable are the lack luster one-liner jokes that always seem to stand out in the previous films. They exist, however they are not really that funny. Also the same joke was recycled over and over that by the end I do not recall laughing about anything in the final 40 mins of the film. Perhaps my biggest complaint is that the villain in this film is vanilla. So plain that I do not care to even look up his name. Just know that if you are a fan of the film he is nowhere near the Brilliance of the characters Hans Gruber or even Simon Gruber in previous films. And for this series that is a big problem. We know John McClane is a bad ass, but what is the point of all his destruction if he is not using it to stomp someone who is equally menacing.
In the end I can say that this film is a guilty pleasure that I enjoyed. It is far from a good movie but fans of the series and anyone just looking to watch a run of the mill action flick will be entertained. Leading up to this film I watch the previous four films and I have to say that this film is better than Die Hard 2: Die Harder and Live Free and Die Hard but behind the Die Hard With A Vengeance and far behind the original Die Hard. If you have never seen a Die Hard film, do yourself a favor and use the price of admission to rent the original.
Thinkrolls: Kings & Queens
Education and Games
App
Thinkrolls Kings & Queens is an epic adventure of logic, physics and fun! Practice reasoning, memory...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
3 Strong Actors Elevate This Above Mediocrity
Generally, when a movie is “dumped” in January, it is a sure sign of a bad film, filled with Liam Neeson kicking butt or CGI monsters attacking a small group of survivors in an isolated location, but these being times that they are, Warner Brothers release of THE LITTLE THINGS simultaneously in Movie Theaters and on HBO MAX gave me reason to change my thinking.
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And…I’m glad I did for THE LITTLE THINGS is an intriguing mystery with 3 very strong actors going toe-to-toe with each other.
Written and Directed by John Lee Hancock (THE BLIND SIDE), THE LITTLE THINGS stars the great Denzel Washington as a former L.A. Detective (now a Sherriff in some small town) who returns to L.A. and teams up with his hot shot replacement (Rami Malek) to track down a serial killer (the main suspect being Jared Leto).
It is a moody, atmospheric piece with Hancock taking his time telling the story he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, letting this trio of Oscar winning actors take over the story while he creates interesting, moody pictures/scenarios/scenes.
And…this approach mostly works. 2 time Oscar winner Denzel Washington, as you can imagine, is terrific as Joe “Deke” Deacon a cracker-jack Detective that is living with some demons from his last case in L.A.. He is in 90% of the scenes in this film and he is more than capable of carrying this film through some pretty slow and sloggy scenes.
I would love to say that Oscar winner Rami Malek is equal to the task of playing against Washington and keeping the middle part of this film interesting - but he just isn’t. Not to say that Malek is bad - he is very good. He just isn’t as good as Washington and the chemistry between these two characters was just not all that strong.
That said…without spoiling anything…Malek has a scene at the end of this film where he is TERRIFIC and shows that he is a VERY, VERY good actor.
The wild card in this film is Oscar winner Jared Leto as the prime suspect in this case - and he is more than up to the task. As is often the case in these sorts of film (think David Fincher’s SEVEN), Leto does not show up in full force until about 2/3 of the way through the film and that is too bad for he creates sparks on the screen the moment he enters the proceedings and the 3 way interrogation scene between these 3 Oscar winners is, I’m sure, what drew all 3 of these performers to this project and is the best thing in the film.
The praise and the criticism of this film must fall on Writer/Director Hancock, for he was smart enough to cast these 3 actors and direct them well while also falling prey to falling in love too much with the script and atmosphere he created to the detriment of the film. He could have used someone telling him to speed things up.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)