Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2020
Pleasantly Surprised with a Great Lead Performance by Moss
I really had no desire to check out the Blumhouse re-imaging of the classic Universal horror classic THE INVISIBLE MAN, but I was hearing positive comments on it - especially about the lead performance - so I figured I'd better check it out.
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And I'm glad I did. For this INVISIBLE MAN is taught and tense with (of course) a strong leading performance. And...it has something else...
Intelligence.
Originally, THE INVISIBLE MAN was supposed to be part of the ongoing Universal Studios "Dark Universe" series of films - Universal's answer to the Marvel Cinematic Universe or the DCEU - but when the first film in this series THE MUMMY tanked at the box office, Universal made a "first look deal" with Blumhouse Studios (makers of such low budget horror films as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and THE PURGE) to make stand alone films with the classic Universal Studios characters.
First up...THE INVISIBLE MAN...replacing Johnny Depp in the titular role and changing the focus of the film from THE INVISIBLE MAN to a woman (Elizabeth Moss) being harassed (or is she?) by THE INVISIBLE MAN.
And...an inspired choice it is. I was surpirsed by the restraint and intelligence that Blumhouse - and Director Leigh Whanell (UPGRADE) - show with this material. Whanell ratchets up the tension and let's the audience sit in the uncertainty that the main character has.
And...when that main character is performed as well as Elisabeth Moss (THE HANDMAID'S TALE), then it is 2 hours well worth your time. Moss' performance is the glue that holds this film together. If she isn't as good as she is in her role, then this film doesn't work. She is...and it does. Some say that she should earn an Oscar nomination for this work. I wouldn't quite go there (if any actress in a Horror film deserves an Oscar nomination, it would have been Lupita Nyong'o in US last year) but it is a very, very good performance.
As is the performances of Harriet Dyer (as Moss' sister) and Aldis Hodge (as a friend of Moss' character). These two brought watch-ability, and believe-ability, to their characters and situations. And this is good for, if I'm to be honest, this film does fall down in the believe-ability factor. I have a tendency to turn that part of my brain off in these types of films, but there are HUGE plot holes and gaps in logic that I just couldn't ignore, which brought this film down a peg or so.
As does the performance of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in the title role. I just didn't like what he was doing in this role, but fortunately, we don't see much of him (rim-shot).
Overall, a pleasant enough surprise with an intelligence I wasn't expecting and a lead performance that is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Delivers EXACTLY what is expected - and that's a good thing
If you are heading into the multi-plex to check out FAST AND FURIOUS PRESENTS: HOBBS & SHAW, the 9th(!) entry in the Fast and Furious Universe, you pretty much know (and expect) what you are about to watch.
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And HOBBS & SHAW does not disappoint - delivering over-the-top action with unsinkable heroes and unblinking villains battling each other with explosions galore and disposable henchmen being...well...disposed of left and right.
Reprising their roles as "Lawman" Luke Hobbs and "Outcast" Deckard Shaw (F&F terms for them) are the charismatic Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson and the smoldering Jason Statham. Their two characters can't stand each other, so - naturally - they are forced to work in concert with each other to stop Super-Villain Brixton (Edris Elba). Can these 2 "frenemies" learn to put aside their differences and work together to stop a Villain that they cannot stop by themselves?
What do you think?
But...it's the journey...not the destination that's the fun of this film and this film is fun, fun, fun, indeed. Both Johnson and Statham know EXACTLY what type of film they are in - and know what their core audience is coming to this film to see - and they deliver in spades. They are perfect for these characters and are perfectly paired together. While the script, at times, seemed forced, these 2 action SuperStars make even the clunkiest of dialogue work and they are "game" for whatever is thrown at them.
Elba joins in strongly as the villain and newcomer (at least to this franchise) Vanessa Kirby (the White Widow in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT) just as strongly counterbalances all 3 of them as the "McGuffin" of this film - the thing that the good guys and the bad guys are fighting each other for. Dame Helen Mirren is back as the criminal mother of Statham's character and she understands what type of film she's in as well. So does Eddie Marsan, who looks like he is having an absolute ball as a scientist brought into the fray.
There are also 2 "secret cameos" in this film that are fun - and I perked up in my seat when both of these cameos injected energy into this testosterone-infused flick.
Former Stuntman and Director David Leitch (DEADPOOL 2, ATOMIC BLONDE) throws a ton of action, car chases, guns, fights and explosions at the audience - all to good effect. His answer to bad acting and huge, implausible plot holes? Blow things up! And that works very, very well for this film. Leitch delivers exactly what is expected here - and that's just fine for me.
I was extremely entertained by this movie. I was in the mood for it - and it delivered exactly what I was looking for. Kind of like eating a good burger.
Letter Grade: A- (though, don't expect to break into "discussion groups" afterward)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Learn & Practice Bass Guitar Lessons Exercises
Education and Music
App
Purely Bass Guitar is designed to help you become a better player! Use Purely Bass Guitar to...
Jerzy Dudek: A Big Pole in Our Goal - Autobiography
Book
Liverpool Football Club has won trophy after trophy. It has enjoyed success after success....
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn: Texas Blood Money (1999) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn 2 Blood Money
Characters – Buck is a thieve that has claimed to have gone clean after his recent stint in prison, the cops do still watch him, only now he gets a chance at a new job which will see him put his crew together, he has a way to work with his men, well that is about it, his character doesn’t have much more to him, Sheriff Otis Lawson has been waiting for Buck to make a mistake for years now, using the latest former member of his crew as hope that he could catch him in the act once again. Luther is the one that brings the job to Buck, only on his way back to the crew, he ends up at the Titty Twister grabbing the attention of the vampires, looking for spread the curse to a new selection of victims. C.W. is another member of the crew and just like the rest they don’t get much to make them stand out.
Performances – Robert Patrick does try to make the most of his character only he doesn’t get anything to work with here. This is the big problem for the rest of the cast, nobody gets a chance to make anything from their characters who all end up being painful bland.
Story – The story follows a group of criminals that are looking to head to Mexico for their latest job, only to attract the attention of the vampires using the Titty Twister becoming the latest target, can they survive the night? The story here is very weak, we get five criminals with little to no character development, not making us care about what is happening. We get thrown into another direction with the story which doesn’t help because we know what is happening, while certain members of the crew don’t, this does against what we learnt about the vampires in the first film. this story just feels like a forced sequel nobody really asked for.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of this horror comes from seeing just how the crew is operating, how they plan to get the job done, the horror comes from the vampire side of the film, it does have darker moments, only it still doesn’t feel like a scarier film.
Settings – The film is set between Mexico and Texas, no location involved does make us feel like we are in iconic location the first one did.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the same standard either, with most of the attacks being from bats which seem to be extreme close ups that just feel too difficult to watch.
Scene of the Movie – A helping hand?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of interest around the characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a disappoint sequel that pulls the quality level right down to just a basic sequel that just so happens to visit the same bar, having no connection to the previous film.
Overall: Bland sequel.
Characters – Buck is a thieve that has claimed to have gone clean after his recent stint in prison, the cops do still watch him, only now he gets a chance at a new job which will see him put his crew together, he has a way to work with his men, well that is about it, his character doesn’t have much more to him, Sheriff Otis Lawson has been waiting for Buck to make a mistake for years now, using the latest former member of his crew as hope that he could catch him in the act once again. Luther is the one that brings the job to Buck, only on his way back to the crew, he ends up at the Titty Twister grabbing the attention of the vampires, looking for spread the curse to a new selection of victims. C.W. is another member of the crew and just like the rest they don’t get much to make them stand out.
Performances – Robert Patrick does try to make the most of his character only he doesn’t get anything to work with here. This is the big problem for the rest of the cast, nobody gets a chance to make anything from their characters who all end up being painful bland.
Story – The story follows a group of criminals that are looking to head to Mexico for their latest job, only to attract the attention of the vampires using the Titty Twister becoming the latest target, can they survive the night? The story here is very weak, we get five criminals with little to no character development, not making us care about what is happening. We get thrown into another direction with the story which doesn’t help because we know what is happening, while certain members of the crew don’t, this does against what we learnt about the vampires in the first film. this story just feels like a forced sequel nobody really asked for.
Crime/Horror – The crime side of this horror comes from seeing just how the crew is operating, how they plan to get the job done, the horror comes from the vampire side of the film, it does have darker moments, only it still doesn’t feel like a scarier film.
Settings – The film is set between Mexico and Texas, no location involved does make us feel like we are in iconic location the first one did.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are not at the same standard either, with most of the attacks being from bats which seem to be extreme close ups that just feel too difficult to watch.
Scene of the Movie – A helping hand?
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The lack of interest around the characters.
Final Thoughts – This is a disappoint sequel that pulls the quality level right down to just a basic sequel that just so happens to visit the same bar, having no connection to the previous film.
Overall: Bland sequel.
Pocket Scanner Ultimate – PDF Scanner
Business and Productivity
App
Pocket Scanner Ultimate is the stand-alone version of Kdan’s Pocket Scanner series. Search...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King of Comedy (1983) in Movies
Jun 2, 2020
While I vaguely knew the name of the film I'd never seen it and didn't really get the vibe that I wanted to, after seeing the Joker though I was hit by so many comments on it in reviews that I really needed to see it.
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Rupert Pupkin dreams of a life as a stand-up comic. Almost every night he's outside the local studio to see his idol Jerry Langford to try and get the big break that will launch his career. Rupert's obsession for success starts to completely run his life and with his newfound "friendship" with Jerry he becomes even more unstable and crosses a line there's no coming back from.
Before I comment on anything specific I want to point out that the rating of the film isn't really anything to do with its quality, it's more to do with me. I absolutely hate awkward comedy and awkwardness in general on screen, it makes me uncomfortable and I would much rather just leave that awkward feeling to my everyday life than have it in my downtime too.
The story idea is a solid one (if it hadn't been then I'm sure Joke would have done more original thinking) and the idea of obsessive fan culture is something I think all generations can get along with. Because of that fact I can see it appealing to a variety of people if they can get past the dated feel to it.
Robert De Niro did a great job as Pupkin, and even in the short clip above you can see that in his behaviour changes to his environment. The dynamic with each individual character changes from confidence to anxious and irritated and you get a sense of what's going on in his head. His performance escalates nicely and when you combine his actions with those of Masha (Sandra Bernhard) you get quite an impact at the end.
I get the feeling it might be a little... bland... for modern audiences at times. That might not be quite the right way to describe it. It plods along at a good pace but there isn't any deviation from its focus on Pupkin and if that doesn't click with you then it might not be something that can keep you interested.
If this hadn't come up in my Twitter polls of films to watch then I probably wouldn't have reviewed it. It's a good film, with solid acting and everything is a perfect snapshot of its era, but it just isn't for me. If I'd watched it years ago and certainly if I'd watched it before Joker came out then I might have been able to engage more with it. I can see why so many people love it but it just isn't for me.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-king-of-comedy-movie-review.html
Blackjack 21: Blackjackist
Games
App
Play The Best Blackjack 21 free game with millions of players from all over the world! Blackjack is...
A film with dodgy voices.
Catching up here with a review of a film I saw a couple of weeks ago.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.
What a great film “Get Out” was. Jordan Peele’s classic which unpeeled (sic) race relations in a wholly novel and horrifying way. Yes, the story was a bit ‘out there’ and unbelievable, but he pulled it off with great chutzpah.
With his follow-up film – “Us”…. sorry but, for me, it just didn’t work.
From great beginnings
It all starts so promisingly. Young Adelaide Wilson (a fine debut performance by Madison Curry) is on a seaside holiday with her mother and careless father when she wanders onto the deserted Santa Cruz beach at night. There sits, like some gothic horror ghost train, the Hall of Mirrors. “Find Yourself” it taunts. She makes the mistake of entering and changes her life forever.
Spin forwards 30 years and Adelaide, now a married mother of two, is back in Santa Cruz with a terrifying feeling that things are about to go pear-shaped. And of course they do!
Why oh why oh why those voices?
This film had me gripped until a particular point. Having people stand still and silent at the end of your drive is an incredibly spooky thing to show. But then, for me, the wheels came off big time. The “reveal” of who these people were I could take. But the manner of their behaviour and – particularly – how they talked was horrifying; and not in a good way. When “Red” started speaking I couldn’t believe my ears: Joe Pasquale after swallowing Donald Duck.
From there, the film became farcical for me, descending in progressive stages to a tunnel-based apocalypse: a plot element that was just so paper thin it bore no scrutiny at all.
This was, no doubt, an attempt at a satirical dig at the class structure of America (“We are Americans” adding a double meaning to the name of the film). If it had been played as a deliberate comedy farce it might have worked. But otherwise no.
Flashes of Peele brilliance
This is not to say that there are not positives in the film. The excellent Lupita Nyong’o gives the whacky material her all, and the other adult female lead – Elisabeth Moss (from TV’s “The Handmaid’s Tale”) – is good value as Kitty Tyler: a diabolical incarnation in either form!
Peele also delivers flashes of directorial brilliance. The “hands across America”, disappearing into the sea, is a sight that stays with you. I also liked the twist at the end, although in retrospect it’s difficult to relate it to the rest of the story and strikes of desperation in the storytelling.
Overall, a big disappointment
I know there are some who really like this movie. Each to their own, but I was not one of them. After “Get Out” I was hoping for something much better. I hope that was just Jordan Peele’s “difficult second album”.