Search
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Night Play (Dark-Hunter #5, Were-Hunter #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<i>Night Play</i> is one of my favorites in this series so far - it's right up there with <i>Fantasy Lover</i> and <i>Dance with the Devil</i>, although I think DwtD might come out ahead. I love, love, loved it! It was one of those books that just got better. The plot was slightly different than the previous books in the series and focused more on the love story. Bride was a wonderful, size eighteen human heroine, who knows (or knew anyway) nothing about what goes bump in the night, while Vane is a to-die-for hunky hero. Need I say more? Everyone would love a guy like him - I know I would! This was one of those books that a few times at the end I had that big, goofy, dumb smile on my face, and don't pretend I'm the only one! ;P
Valerius makes another appearance as a slightly more likable character and he looks to be a very interesting and intriguing hero in his installment. Actually, a lot of the characters who make appearances sound like they'd be great heroes/heroines. Too bad Sherrilyn can't turn them out faster and most likely won't have time for all of them! :P
This was a nice review:
From Booklist
Bride McTierney has just been dumped via FedEx. There's not much that could ease such a broken heart until Vane Kattalakis wanders into her shop and her life. Their whirlwind affair feels too good to be true. After all, her ex-beau proved men are dogs, which turns out to be a more appropriate figure of speech than Bride could ever imagine. More character driven than her previous Dark-Hunter novels, Kenyon's latest is a nice change of pace yet still chock-full of the quirky humor, complex fantasy, and searing passion that her readers love. This book's success, however, appropriately lies with Bride and Vane. It's been said of Kenyon that she knows men, but she really knows women and all our secret fears and hidden desires. She has distilled those into Bride, who is both our sister and ourselves. Then she made a man who understands and loves her, insecurities and all. Every woman should have a Vane Kattalakis in her life. Thanks to Kenyon, every woman can.
Valerius makes another appearance as a slightly more likable character and he looks to be a very interesting and intriguing hero in his installment. Actually, a lot of the characters who make appearances sound like they'd be great heroes/heroines. Too bad Sherrilyn can't turn them out faster and most likely won't have time for all of them! :P
This was a nice review:
From Booklist
Bride McTierney has just been dumped via FedEx. There's not much that could ease such a broken heart until Vane Kattalakis wanders into her shop and her life. Their whirlwind affair feels too good to be true. After all, her ex-beau proved men are dogs, which turns out to be a more appropriate figure of speech than Bride could ever imagine. More character driven than her previous Dark-Hunter novels, Kenyon's latest is a nice change of pace yet still chock-full of the quirky humor, complex fantasy, and searing passion that her readers love. This book's success, however, appropriately lies with Bride and Vane. It's been said of Kenyon that she knows men, but she really knows women and all our secret fears and hidden desires. She has distilled those into Bride, who is both our sister and ourselves. Then she made a man who understands and loves her, insecurities and all. Every woman should have a Vane Kattalakis in her life. Thanks to Kenyon, every woman can.
Mayhawke (97 KP) rated Her Every Fear in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Workaday Thriller
For the record I should say that I listened to the book rather than reading a hard copy, and the reading of the book I was listening to was not the most inspiring. The reader (Juliette Burton) was what I think of as a 'flat' reader - aside from the odd accent adopted to distinguish characters there was little variation in tone and pace through the reading. This is not a style that works for me as I find it detracts from those moments where a writer has obviously written for atmosphere or tension. This is particularly the case where the book in question is a thriller - after all, it's supposed to thrill, not pass by with all the excitement, intrigue and suspense of a banking ad.
In the book's favour I found the main character believable and sympathetic. Her actions and choices, as a trauma survivor, I found more realistic than the standard we are usually given, where a character is given all the most extreme behaviours and responses ,and few if any of the more moderate ones - or if they are they never act upon them. She is likable and logical, even when she knows that her own actions are illogical and driven by fear. Sometimes she submits to the fear, others she doesn't. She is not one-dimensional. The premise for the character that 'she has always been overly-nervous' seems a little superfluous - she has a history that gives her cause enough to be nervous, and I don't think there is anything in her personality that needs justification beyond that.
That said this is not the most inspired of thrillers. There are no real surprises, no great twists or turns . It's a good, readable story( a holiday read, maybe) but it's never going to have you hanging on the edge of your seat, and the end could have been at least one chapter shorter, possibly more. The fact that this so and yet I still wanted to hear more is a testament to writing skill of Swanson and the general readability of the book.
To summarise: I will probably have forgotten I've read this in a month or so, but I wouldn't say it wasn't worth the read, and though demanding or deeply engrossing I enjoyed it while it lasted.
In the book's favour I found the main character believable and sympathetic. Her actions and choices, as a trauma survivor, I found more realistic than the standard we are usually given, where a character is given all the most extreme behaviours and responses ,and few if any of the more moderate ones - or if they are they never act upon them. She is likable and logical, even when she knows that her own actions are illogical and driven by fear. Sometimes she submits to the fear, others she doesn't. She is not one-dimensional. The premise for the character that 'she has always been overly-nervous' seems a little superfluous - she has a history that gives her cause enough to be nervous, and I don't think there is anything in her personality that needs justification beyond that.
That said this is not the most inspired of thrillers. There are no real surprises, no great twists or turns . It's a good, readable story( a holiday read, maybe) but it's never going to have you hanging on the edge of your seat, and the end could have been at least one chapter shorter, possibly more. The fact that this so and yet I still wanted to hear more is a testament to writing skill of Swanson and the general readability of the book.
To summarise: I will probably have forgotten I've read this in a month or so, but I wouldn't say it wasn't worth the read, and though demanding or deeply engrossing I enjoyed it while it lasted.
UP
Unprecedented Power: Jesse Jones, Capitalism and the Common Good
Book
As President Obama began to unveil sweeping government programs to restore the crippled economy, the...
Frosthaven
9.0
Rate It
Tabletop Game
Frosthaven is the story of a small outpost far to the north of the capital city of White Oak, an...
XCOM®: Enemy Within
Games
App
***NOTE: Compatible with iPad 3, iPad mini 2, iPhone 5 and up. WILL NOT be able to run on earlier...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I, Tonya (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Some Darwin award winners.
Man, I personally found this one to be an exceedingly uncomfortable watch.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
“I, Tonya” is cleverly filmed as a pseudo-documentary, featuring re-enactments of the real-life interviews of most of the participants in this true-life drama. I recently bitterly criticised some film critics for spoiling the story of Donald Crowhurst, the subject of the recent “The Mercy”. But I was about to do exactly the same here, *assuming* that you all know the lurid tale of the rivalry between Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan that led up to an ‘event’ in 1994 that shocked the world. And of course, many of you younger folk don’t know: case in point my 26 year old son who I went to see this with, and who went into the story blissfully blind of the drama about to unfold. So I will try to keep this review spoiler-free.
Playing Tonya from a (not very credible!) 15 years old to her mid-20’s is Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street”, “Suicide Squad”) in what is a BAFTA and Oscar nominated performance. And for good reason: the performance is raw, visceral and disturbing in reflecting a victim who still thinks everything at heart is her own fault.
Also BAFTA and Oscar nominated is Allison Janney (“The Girl on the Train”) as Tonya’s obnoxious chain-smoking mother LaVona. Janney is truly terrifying as the mother who abuses her daughter both physically and mentally in a driven attempt to make her the best ice-skater in the world.
Victims seem to attract abusers, and Tonya is surrounded by people who are just plain bad for her: notably her husband Jeff (Sebastian Stan, “The Martian”, “Captain America: Winter Soldier”) and his slimy and pitifully self-deluded friend Shawn (Paul Walter Hauser). The end credits video footage of the real-life players show just how well these parts were cast.
Why so uncomfortable to watch? There is a significant degree of domestic abuse featured in the film, both in terms of LaVona on her child and Jeff on his wife. This is something I abhor in general, having been brought up to believe it is never EVER acceptable to lay a hand on a woman. To have these cowardly individuals sensationalised in the movie I found to be really upsetting. I strongly feel, for this reason alone, that the film should have had an 18 certificate. Violence in film should be related to the context as well as the severity. (Note that this is in stark contrast to my comments of recent BBFC decisions to make “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” 15-certificates when I believe they should have been 12A).
The film is executed extremely well, with 4:3 framing for the staged interviews, and ice skating scenes that seamlessly cut between the professional clearly doing the stunts and Robbie (who must also be a half decent skater too). The soundtrack is nicely littered – “Guardians of the Galaxy” style – with classic hits of the early 90’s.
To think that this story actually unfolded in this way is nothing short of astounding… but it did! There is an astonishing video clip here (#spoilers) of the run up to, and the immediate aftermath of, the Kerrigan incident. I came out of the film with a deep feeling of sadness for Harding (at least, as portrayed) and utter disgust that the villains of this piece could be a) so cruel and out of control and b) so utterly stupid. These are individuals who really should have been sterilised to stop them polluting the gene pool any further.
Written by Steven Rogers (“Stepmom”) and directed by Australian Craig Gillespie, there is no doubting that this is a powerful film: played to an absolutely silent and gripped Saturday night cinema audience. And it has truly dynamite performances from Allison Janney and Margot Robbie. But be warned that you’ll need a strong stomach to go and see it without being affected by it afterwards. It’s a mental keeper.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Apes...together...strong!
The recent revival of the Apes franchise has managed to defy all expectations by not only being a worthy entry into the franchise, but also being strong films on their own merit. Working as a kind-of-prequel-reboot of the old franchise, and ignoring the Tim Burton film completely, it is strange to realise this is only the third film since the reboot. Lesser franchises would have churned out one every year or two, and be up to part five by now, but not the Apes films. It genuinely feels like they are taking time to ensure each film is worthy. Which is where another expectation is defied – the films don’t seem to diminish in quality, nor feel repetitive. Each entry so far has had its own feel and worked to move the story along. War for the Planet of the Apes is no exception, and is one of the finest blockbuster films of this year.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
It has been 15 years since the events of the first film, and the release of the Simian Flu virus that wiped out a large percentage of humanity. The events of the second film saw the start of conflict between the apes and humans, instigated by Koba who defied Caesar’s leadership. Now, humanity are hunting down the apes, with one Colonel (Woody Harrelson) in particular striving to wipe them out entirely. When that Colonel attacks Caesar’s tribe, killing those close to him, it sets the ape leader off on a personal revenge journey, with only a few of his most loyal followers supporting him on the way. However, along the way they encounter two new recruits, an ape hermit who has also developed speech, and a young human girl who is showing signs of a new strain of the Simian virus.
It is a testament to the motion captured performances and the quality of the CGI on offer that at no point during the film do you not believe that the apes on screen are real. There’s a line in the film where Harrelson’s Colonel comments on how human looking Caesar’s eyes are, and whilst you could see that in the context of the film series’ arc (apes are becoming the new rulers, usurping humanity, and so are becoming more human), you can also see it as a nod to how the ‘uncanny valley’ dead-eye stare that plagues CGI in film is entirely absent here. Indeed, given that every scene in this relatively moderate $150million budget film is an effect shot, as apes are present throughout, it is jaw dropping that it looks a far more polished film than, for example, the $265million budgeted Rogue One – a film which tried desperately with two key CGI characters and failed so hard in the brief screen time they had. Over all the Apes series has impressed with the effects work, but here it is pretty much flawless.
But it isn’t all about the effects. In fact the action-packed film the trailers seemed to hint at is instead a thoughtful, character-driven revenge journey, with only short bursts of action. This is Caesar’s dark-journey of the soul, the end result of his attempts to live a peaceful co-existence with a humanity that fears him and his kind. Many comparisons can be drawn to films such as Apocalypse Now (something the film is aware of and manages to drop a reference to as a result), where a troubled individual, tired of war, seeks a crazed Colonel who is amassing his own army for an unknown purpose. The two core leads in their respective roles give their all. Serkis acting to a high degree, and giving genuine life to Caesar, and Harrelson gone completely Brando in his part, menacing without being overbearing.
The journey itself is a compelling story, and the support characters, some who we already know (Maurice, Luca and Rocket) acting as the conscience and the advisers to the troubled Caesar. The new additions, Amiah Miller’s war orphan who Maurice adopts on their journey, and Bad Ape (Steve Zahn) offer heart and comic relief respectively. The comic timing is perfectly placed, never feeling forced, and being deftly used to offer a glimmer of hope and joy in what is otherwise a very dark tale.
The film, overall, nicely rounds out the trilogy, whilst still leaving room for future films down the line. Matt Reeves’ direction makes effective use of his cast and settings, whilst the score by Michael Giacchino has grown more ‘ape-inspired’ since he scored the previous film, reflecting in its drums and pipes the more primate nature manner the world is taking as technology and humanity dwindles.
“Apes together strong!” is Caesar’s mantra. Indeed, all three Apes films, when viewed together, can be seen as one impressive, strong story, with a genuine progression throughout. A third film in a franchise usually derails and loses the way. Not here as this is one of the finest examples of intelligent blockbuster that you will find.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Pandora's Box (1929) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Pandora’s Box was one of the last films of the silent era, a period of transition to sound which I believe set the art of cinematography back a decade.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
In short. Pandora’s Box looks stunning! Using the frame to its fullest, with a combination of wide framing and exploiting the art of the close up as Lulu herself, would the men around her, as well as driven by brilliant performances by most of the cast. But kudos needs to go to the star, Louise Brooks, as she portrays Lulu, the alluring flapper girl who can work her innocent, secutive magic on anyone, men and women alike.
But this is not limited to the narrative’s characters as her performance is subtle and underplayed, oozing out the silver screen and seducing the audience with same allure. If looks could kill, then this movie has them all.
With a sparse use of inter-titles, the film relies on both the physicality of the cast and imaginative cinematography to convey the seductive and danger of the events as they unfold over the two and bit hour runtime. Fritz Korner in particular rivals Brooks with the intensity of his performance as the ill fated husband of the girl about town.
And then there’s Alice Roberts, the Countess, who is widely thought to have the first lesbian to be seen on screen. Only Belgian actress’s second film in her short career, is played very Germanic, yet sympathetic as she too, has been drawn under Lulu’s spell.
This was made during the period in which German cinema was ruling, driving the art form from the nickelodeon to the theatre, but this was about to change in the 1930’s with advent of the sound and the golden age of American cinema. But as this film proves, you do not need sound to tell or show a good story.
Granted, the central story is pretty mediocre; a simple tale of a damaged woman who instinctively uses her allure to get her own way yet not as a diva, just an instinctive manipulator, casting her spell far and wide until that spell leads her into the hands London serial killer, Jack The Ripper (Gustav Diessl). But she is never portrayed as evil or scheming, just as herself as those around her are drawn to her aide.
There is little of the pantamine action or motives that you can expect from this genre even now, 90 years on.
But German director G.W. Pabst manages to create a multi-layered tale, deepened by psychological and social subtext, achieved as much because of the relationship he garnered with the star, Brookes, as he played on her natural talents to bring one of cinemas most defining roles to the screen. This would be the first of two collaborations between the director and the wayward starlet that year.
Pandora’s Box is yet another example of how German Cinema was leading the world back in the 1920’s; and even though the second world war may have brought this golden era to an abrupt end, it’s legacy lives on today with the styles, both in front and behind the camera, still being honoured by entire film industry now and hopefully for decades to come.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
On the wrong side of 60 you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was time for Liam Neeson to hang up his gun and move away from the cold, steely world of action films, into the fuzzy and sentimental territory of a rom-com.
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Thankfully he and director Jaume Collet-Serra, who Neeson previously worked with on the disappointing thriller Unknown, have decided to continue with the action thriller theme in Taken on a Plane, sorry… Non-Stop.
Neeson plays troubled US air marshal Bill Marks as he begins a non-stop flight from New York to London, though from the outset it is obvious this will be no ordinary journey.
Marks is a man with a chequered past. From suffering with depression after the breakdown of his marriage to his subsequent alcoholism, everything seems to be utterly gloomy.
Soon after take off, Neeson’s character is sent numerous anonymous texts stating that a person on board will be killed every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a bank account.
Cue Neeson’s trademark gruff tone as he shouts about the cabin trying to discover just hr_Non-Stop_6who is behind the messages. It’s fair to say things aren’t as simple as that and Collet-Serra’s spirited direction keeps things moving with more twists than a curly-wurly.
Julianne Moore stars as Marks’s ‘seat neighbour’ and is as usual excellent but unusually bland, portraying a character that numerous other actresses could’ve fitted into quite easily – it’s a strange departure from Moore’s more deep characterisations, but she does it well despite the lack of material she’s given to work with.
The plot is well driven by the excellent cinematography, using the confined spaces of an aircraft to great effect with sweeping shots of the cabin over the heads of passengers and the use of aeroplane windows to move in and out of the fuselage.
Technology plays a huge part in Non-Stop, the constant stream of text messages that Neeson receives could have made the film fall flat, but thankfully each one is put up on the screen allowing the audience to read them in real time, rather than stopping the story dead and allowing boredom to set in.
Whilst the story and plot are first-rate, the special effects unfortunately are not such a blast. Whilst the majority of them are passable given the film’s relatively small budget of $50 million, the shots of the aircraft towards the finale are underwhelming and look like they belong in a video game, not a Hollywood blockbuster. It’s an unfortunate lapse in an otherwise very competent film.
Thankfully Neeson’s now applauded acting technique distracts from these moments enough to steer Non-Stop to a pulse-racing and very satisfying conclusion.
Overall, Non-Stop is good fun from start to finish and barely slows within its succinct running time. However, it all feels very familiar and this is a problem for its main star too. For all of Neeson’s fans this is another good notch on their bedposts – but I doubt it will bring any newcomers to his admittedly large following, meaning he runs of the risk of being typecast.
Nevertheless, apart from a few lapses in special effects and a rather bland Julianne Moore, Non-Stop is definitely worth a watch – even if there may be a sense of deja vu.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/03/01/non-stop-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Since his spectacular fight which ended in a loss at the conclusion of “Creed”, Adonis Johnson Creed (Michael B. Jordan) has won his next six bouts and then pulls off an impressive victory to become the new Heavyweight Champion.
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/
Life is good for the new champion as he believes he has moved out of the shadow of his legendary father and is ready to settle down with Bianca (Tessa Thompson) and move ahead with life.
At the same time, former Russian Champion Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) is training his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) in Kiev to become and even more devastating boxer than he was. Ivan has suffered much since losing to Rocky in “Rocky IV” as his wife has left him and he has been shunned and cast out of the country which once lauded him as their prize athlete. Losing to Rocky in Moscow in front of numerous dignitaries has ruined him and made his life a shell of what he was leaving him and his son cold, bitter, and driven.
When the opportunity for Viktor and Adonis to box is presented, Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) advises Adonis not to take the match. Rocky recounts that not only did Ivan kill his father in the ring, but in beating him, Rocky suffered injuries which ended his boxing career and have never fully healed.
Despite the warnings, Adonis takes the match and is unprepared for the raw brutality that Viktor presents and sufferers a horrific beating but manages to hold his title due to a technicality.
The film then follows a standard redemption story of Adonis trying to recover, face his fears, train, and find a new level of strength that he has never shown before. The climatic fight is very entertaining and well-staged and had fans at our screening reacting with cheers and dismay as the punches landed.
The film does follow some very familiar territory for the series from the emotional highs and lows of the ring, battling yourself as well as an opponent, the grueling training session, and of course the big match at the end.
Stallone gives another moving and solid performance as the aging Rocky showing that his Academy Award nominated turn in the prior film was not a fluke. What was also impressive was how Dolph Lundgren returned to a role he initially had reservations about doing and gave Drago a sympathetic side even though he is a bad guy in the film. We see a man desperate to recover what he was and who is devastated by what life has dealt him but forces himself to examine the past as he guides his son’s future.
Jordan carries a lot of swagger with his character and while the story attempts to show a softer side of his character; he is not as sympathetic as he was in the past film. I noted that Rocky was much easier to get behind as he was a more sympathetic underdog at times. That is part of what makes the series so interesting in that Rocky is still there as a presence over Adonis to guide and inform him to try to make him a true champion while allowing him to have his own identity and style.
If you are a fan of the series, then you should enjoy this next offering as long as you do not mind the formula for much of the series repeated.
http://sknr.net/2018/11/20/creed-ii/