Search
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Run Lola Run (1999) in Movies
Nov 2, 2020
Heart-racing!
If someone asked me to describe Run Lola Run in a phrase or a few words, I would say, “Think Groundhog Day if it were a heist movie.” Though not quite on the same level as Groundhog Day, Run Lola Run definitely provides its share of intriguing moments. The plot: Lola has twenty minutes to come up with the money her boyfriend lost or he will be killed by gangsters.
Acting: 10
Very believable performances all around. Franka Potente is great as Lola, really helping to add to the overall desperation of the story. As leads go, I was very impressed with how she kept me engaged in the story with her great command of the role. What she had to do was not easy in the slightest. I won’t go into detail as to why for fear of ruining the movie, but let’s just say she was asked to do a lot in a short amount of time.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
With everything happening at such a fast clip, they definitely didn’t waste time on character development. While this alone wouldn’t have been enough to propel this movie to high-quality status, it certainly would have helped. Without stronger characters, I felt like the movie lacked in true substance. Sure it was fun, but the end result didn’t leave room for me to care because I didn’t have strong characters to care about.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Time is the conflict here and that concept is used extremely well. Every moment feels dire and extreme. You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. The movie does an excellent job of keeping you guessing. Expect a lot of strong moments that will keep your heart racing!
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 3
Personally, the movie didn’t do enough to stick out in my memory bank. Not that it wasn’t decent, but that was the problem for me: It was just decent. There were no over-the-top scenes that blew me away. I would be happy watching this once…and never again.
Pace: 10
Full use was made of the 81-minute runtime. Run Lola Run keeps you engaged from beginning to end. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall many dull parts, if any.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 10
Satisfying ending to tie the story up nicely. It was good, almost frustratingly so. If the story had been that level of quality, I would be in love with this movie.
Overall: 73
Don’t get me wrong, I can totally see why so many people are enamored with Run Lola Run. Unfortunately for me it was just ok. I would certainly recommend a one-time watch, but it doesn’t hold up as a classic for me.
Acting: 10
Very believable performances all around. Franka Potente is great as Lola, really helping to add to the overall desperation of the story. As leads go, I was very impressed with how she kept me engaged in the story with her great command of the role. What she had to do was not easy in the slightest. I won’t go into detail as to why for fear of ruining the movie, but let’s just say she was asked to do a lot in a short amount of time.
Beginning: 5
Characters: 6
With everything happening at such a fast clip, they definitely didn’t waste time on character development. While this alone wouldn’t have been enough to propel this movie to high-quality status, it certainly would have helped. Without stronger characters, I felt like the movie lacked in true substance. Sure it was fun, but the end result didn’t leave room for me to care because I didn’t have strong characters to care about.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Time is the conflict here and that concept is used extremely well. Every moment feels dire and extreme. You honestly don’t know what’s going to happen next. The movie does an excellent job of keeping you guessing. Expect a lot of strong moments that will keep your heart racing!
Entertainment Value: 7
Memorability: 3
Personally, the movie didn’t do enough to stick out in my memory bank. Not that it wasn’t decent, but that was the problem for me: It was just decent. There were no over-the-top scenes that blew me away. I would be happy watching this once…and never again.
Pace: 10
Full use was made of the 81-minute runtime. Run Lola Run keeps you engaged from beginning to end. For what it’s worth, I don’t recall many dull parts, if any.
Plot: 2
Resolution: 10
Satisfying ending to tie the story up nicely. It was good, almost frustratingly so. If the story had been that level of quality, I would be in love with this movie.
Overall: 73
Don’t get me wrong, I can totally see why so many people are enamored with Run Lola Run. Unfortunately for me it was just ok. I would certainly recommend a one-time watch, but it doesn’t hold up as a classic for me.
Melanie Caldicott (6 KP) rated 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in This Strange World in Books
Apr 29, 2021
You can also read my review at my blog - https://roamingthroughbooks.wordpress.com
I saw this book reviewed on The Sky Arts Book Club and Shafak was interviewed and I think I fell a little in love. Shafak is a beautiful human being who is currently self-exiled from Turkey to the content of her novels being subject to investigation as part of a legal movement in which writers are frequently prosecuted. A passionate storyteller, who writes openly about human rights, her protagonists are often the fallen, forgotten and marginalised. Needless to say I have been looking forward to reading this ever since.
10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World is a novel about a murdered street walker, Tequila Leila and the last moments of brain activity that is said to occur after the heart has stopped beating. The memories of her life flood back, often related to taste and smell and we start to learn about the story of her life.
Central to her memories and providing a backbone to her life were The Five, – five people with which she formed close, integral friendships and in the absence of her blood relatives, are Leila’s “family”.
The book is structured around three parts – the first, The Mind telling the stories of her post-mortem memories, the second, The Body about how she was murdered and the impact it has on The Five, and finally, The Soul which is a touching finale in which The Five determine to give Leila the send-off she deserves.
Shafak is such a clever storyteller and is able to illuminate aspects of humanity which is often avoided or ignored, which make us feel uncomfortable, and yet her tenderness and compassion shine through the portrayal of all her characters enabling the reader to walk a mile in the shoes of those who are often forgotten.
For a book centred around death, an issue that rarely sits comfortably with human beings, 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World confronts it without fear. She skilfully takes a sex worker’s body which is disregarded in its anonymity by those that are responsible for sweeping up the detritus of the Istanbul streets, and reveals a story of a life, full of tragedy, joy and love.
I love how Elif Shafak takes the stories of all of The Five and transforms the insignificant to the significant through the love they have for Leila and each other. In a society which elevates the rich and famous and makes their voices the loudest and most significant in the world, I loved the truth which was affirmed in this book about what a life of substance really means.
I saw this book reviewed on The Sky Arts Book Club and Shafak was interviewed and I think I fell a little in love. Shafak is a beautiful human being who is currently self-exiled from Turkey to the content of her novels being subject to investigation as part of a legal movement in which writers are frequently prosecuted. A passionate storyteller, who writes openly about human rights, her protagonists are often the fallen, forgotten and marginalised. Needless to say I have been looking forward to reading this ever since.
10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World is a novel about a murdered street walker, Tequila Leila and the last moments of brain activity that is said to occur after the heart has stopped beating. The memories of her life flood back, often related to taste and smell and we start to learn about the story of her life.
Central to her memories and providing a backbone to her life were The Five, – five people with which she formed close, integral friendships and in the absence of her blood relatives, are Leila’s “family”.
The book is structured around three parts – the first, The Mind telling the stories of her post-mortem memories, the second, The Body about how she was murdered and the impact it has on The Five, and finally, The Soul which is a touching finale in which The Five determine to give Leila the send-off she deserves.
Shafak is such a clever storyteller and is able to illuminate aspects of humanity which is often avoided or ignored, which make us feel uncomfortable, and yet her tenderness and compassion shine through the portrayal of all her characters enabling the reader to walk a mile in the shoes of those who are often forgotten.
For a book centred around death, an issue that rarely sits comfortably with human beings, 10 Minutes 38 Seconds in this Strange World confronts it without fear. She skilfully takes a sex worker’s body which is disregarded in its anonymity by those that are responsible for sweeping up the detritus of the Istanbul streets, and reveals a story of a life, full of tragedy, joy and love.
I love how Elif Shafak takes the stories of all of The Five and transforms the insignificant to the significant through the love they have for Leila and each other. In a society which elevates the rich and famous and makes their voices the loudest and most significant in the world, I loved the truth which was affirmed in this book about what a life of substance really means.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Wind River (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Between Sicario and Hell or High Water (both of which landed on my year-end best lists for 2015 and 2016 respectively), Taylor Sheridan has already proven to be an incredible talent at crafting slow-burning thrillers that also serve as in-depth character studies. His new film, third as a screenwriter and second as a director, may move at quite a faster pace than his previous two screenplays, but it is no less accomplished, either in plot or in character development. Though some may leave the theater feeling that they haven’t seen anything new, and they’d be right to as there isn’t anything particularly flashy or unique in the direction or cinematography, Wind River however finds its strength in its simplicity. It’s a simple story concerning the death of a young girl on a Wyoming reservation, of the tracker (Jeremy Renner) for whom the circumstance strikes too close to home, and of the presumably untested FBI agent (Elizabeth Olsen) forced to face the darker side of her chosen profession.
For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.
In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
For Jeremy Renner, Wind River marks a career best. He displays restraint in a role that others would have played far too arrogantly and when he lets us in to share in his character’s painful past, the melodrama inherent in the dialogue is delivered with dignity and humility. Complimenting his performance beautifully is Gil Birmingham as Martin, the father of the murdered girl. Much like his work opposite Jeff Bridges in Hell or High Water, his scenes with Renner are the highlight of the film. Every line he delivers reverberates with truth and with the weight of losing of two children, one whose life is thrown away to drug use and one to an untimely, mysterious death. Veteran actor and longtime favorite of mine, Graham Greene is also on hand to give a competent turn as the local sheriff who in equal measures doles out tension-relieving humor as well as reminding us of the gravity of a bleak situation.
In amongst a predominately-male cast, Elizabeth Olsen shines. This film was an undoubtedly a tough task, as her character is given no soft options, and her performance gave me cause to reflect on a young Jodie Foster in The Silence of the Lambs. I don’t just draw this comparison because of the fact they both play young agents thrust into a situation beyond their level of experience, but because of the scenes in these films where they are called upon to confidently take command of a room full of men and to show great physicality in moments of unexpected violence. It’s another top mark in her filmography comparable to her breakout in Martha Marcy May Marlene and hopefully, in-between bouts of this bloated Marvel Cinematic Universe nonsense, we’ll continue to see her in roles of some substance.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Blood Father (2016) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Story: Blood Father starts as John Link (Gibson) who has recovered from his own substance abuse problems to be a tattooist while being parole. He has been searching for his daughter for years but when Lydia (Moriarty) calls him in need of help he races to her aid.
Link finds out that Lydia is in over her head which leads him into going on the run breaking his parole to protect her and locate the people who are trying to kill his daughter, using old connections along the way.
Thoughts on Blood Father
Characters – John Link is a former alcoholic convict, he has cleaned himself up but when his daughter finds herself in trouble he must go back into the routes that left him in prison, he must go after the men trying to kill his daughter, while stopping himself going off the bandwagon. Lydia is the teenager daughter runaway, she finds herself in too deep with the drug cartels but now she needs to trust her father to keep her safe. Jonah is the boyfriend of Lydia that she believes she killed cause the effects of the film. Preacher is one of the people Link turns to for help while Kirby is his support while trying to stay off the drinks.
Performances – Mel Gibson might have had troubled times recently but he shows us here the talent he holds to lead a movie in the action genre. Erin Moriarty is good in this film too because she shows us a street wise character beyond her years. Diego Luna is solid as the villain but we just don’t get enough from his character. This is a problem through the film, we don’t give the support characters enough time.
Story – The story is good, as it follows a distant father daughter relationship needing to rebuild after she finds herself in trouble with the law. This works for the story because we know how the aging hero is the new thing now, as an actor that can easily be the new one that saves his child and this gives us everything we want, we have moments of comedy as the two come from difference backgrounds but overall this is everything you would expect it to be
Action/Crime – The action is fire fights between Link and anyone that gets in his way, this does work well as the crime side of the story takes us into.
Settings – The settings show us the underworld that works for the hiding from potential trouble using no iconic landmarks which makes this fully believable.
Scene of the Movie – Showdown
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t learn enough about the villains.
Final Thoughts – This is a good action film that is enjoyable, short sweet and gives you everything you want.
Overall: Action film 101.
Link finds out that Lydia is in over her head which leads him into going on the run breaking his parole to protect her and locate the people who are trying to kill his daughter, using old connections along the way.
Thoughts on Blood Father
Characters – John Link is a former alcoholic convict, he has cleaned himself up but when his daughter finds herself in trouble he must go back into the routes that left him in prison, he must go after the men trying to kill his daughter, while stopping himself going off the bandwagon. Lydia is the teenager daughter runaway, she finds herself in too deep with the drug cartels but now she needs to trust her father to keep her safe. Jonah is the boyfriend of Lydia that she believes she killed cause the effects of the film. Preacher is one of the people Link turns to for help while Kirby is his support while trying to stay off the drinks.
Performances – Mel Gibson might have had troubled times recently but he shows us here the talent he holds to lead a movie in the action genre. Erin Moriarty is good in this film too because she shows us a street wise character beyond her years. Diego Luna is solid as the villain but we just don’t get enough from his character. This is a problem through the film, we don’t give the support characters enough time.
Story – The story is good, as it follows a distant father daughter relationship needing to rebuild after she finds herself in trouble with the law. This works for the story because we know how the aging hero is the new thing now, as an actor that can easily be the new one that saves his child and this gives us everything we want, we have moments of comedy as the two come from difference backgrounds but overall this is everything you would expect it to be
Action/Crime – The action is fire fights between Link and anyone that gets in his way, this does work well as the crime side of the story takes us into.
Settings – The settings show us the underworld that works for the hiding from potential trouble using no iconic landmarks which makes this fully believable.
Scene of the Movie – Showdown
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t learn enough about the villains.
Final Thoughts – This is a good action film that is enjoyable, short sweet and gives you everything you want.
Overall: Action film 101.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Merrily We Go to Hell (1932) in Movies
Sep 3, 2020 (Updated Sep 3, 2020)
Pre-code (4 more)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Skeet Gallagher as Buck, the sidekick
Florence Britton as Charlcie, the female sidekick
Directed by female director Dorothy Arzner
Contains spoilers, click to show
It was an important movie of its time. It is a pre-code movie so it was able to get away with sins such as alcoholism and infidelity of husbands AND wives without making them pay in the end.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
Sylvia Sidney plays Joan Prentice, the daughter of the president of Prentice coffee and Fredric March plays Jerry Corbett, a newspaperman who wishes to be a playwright. They meet at a society party where she is trying to ignore the advances of a very handsy older man and he is on the terrace drunk and drinking even more. She somehow finds him charming and he finds her "swell." They make a date to meet up again and romance follows. I mean, allegedly follows though it seems like a huge plot point to me what they see in each other and what kind of substance their relationship has. I've never been a very romantic person but even this seems terribly lacking to me.
Skeets Gallagher plays the sidekick Buck and he's worth his weight in gold. He a drinking buddy and scenes with him often start with the camera panning him tap dancing from behind. He's sweet, sympathetic, charming, and adorable and brings so much life to the role and film. Florence Britton plays the female sidekick to Fredric March's Jerry Corbett and is a bold lady, and kind. She and Buck are so much fun and not sloppy drunk like Corbett. I would much rather watch a movie with the two of them.
Sylvia Sidney, the female protagonist was bold and determined. After her husband cheats on her with his former wife, she goes out to have a little fun, too. She gets tired of her husband's constant drunkenness and leaves him. He seems to come to his senses at the end of the movie and goes to her. Spoiler alert: she is in the hospital having delivered their baby. He didn't know she was pregnant and only learned about the baby after reading the birth announcement in the newspaper. This is a premonition of things to come once the code comes into play as any sin must be paid for with a person's ruin or death. However, it ends on a happy note that their marriage will be better and that they are hopeful for the future.
* Watch for Cary Grant in one of his earliest roles as the male lead in the period drama play towards the end of the film.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Harder They Fall (2021) in Movies
Nov 13, 2021
Terrific Ending
I am a “bitter-ender”, I will stay until the end of a Sporting Event or a Movie in the hopes that something interesting will happen.
And, in the case of the Netflix Original Film THE HARDER THEY FALL, I was rewarded for my patience.
Based on real-life African-American characters - and with an All-Black Cast - THE HARDER THEY FALL tells the tale of 2 rival gangs in the “Old West” (circa 1880 or so) as they rob, cheat, outsmart and kill each other.
This 2 1/2 hour epic has 2 distinct parts. The first 2 hours is all set up. A film that looks like a pale imitation of a Quentin Tarantino film by Writer/Director Jaymes Samuel (best known as collaborating with Baz Luhrman and Jay Z on the soundtrack for THE GREAT GATSBY). He is clearly influenced by Tarantno and tries to mimic Tarantino’s style - and, like most imitators - falls short mainly because he focused on the style and not the substance of what Tarantino does.
He populates this film with some of the finest Black Actors working today - Idris Elba, DelRoy Lindo, Jonathan Majors, Lakeith Stanfield and Zazie Bettz are all underutilized during the first 2 hours of this film and I had myself wondering why they agreed to do this film.
And then came the last 1/2 hour.
The final portion of THE HARDER THEY FALL is about as good a piece of film-making that you will see, with the showdown between the 2 rival gangs really paying off and Majors, Lindo and Elba (especially) finally get their chance to shine - and answers the question as to why these fine performers were in this film. It’s as if Samuels had a great ending in mind and patched together a film (and plot) that would get the characters to that point.
And then there is the case of Regina King - who was acting in a different kind of film all along. She reigns in this film like a true MOVIE STAR, commanding the screen - and your attention - whenever she shows up. She has a wonderful monologue in the underwhelming first 2 hours of this film - that is worthy of Tarantino - and shows why King is undeniably a MOVIE STAR. This monologue alone almost makes the first 2 hours bearable.
You will have a conundrum when contemplating seeing THE HARDER THEY FALL. Will you be willing to sit through 2 hours of a B- film (a “C” film, if it wasn’t for King) to, finally, be rewarded with an A+ ending?
The choice is yours.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, in the case of the Netflix Original Film THE HARDER THEY FALL, I was rewarded for my patience.
Based on real-life African-American characters - and with an All-Black Cast - THE HARDER THEY FALL tells the tale of 2 rival gangs in the “Old West” (circa 1880 or so) as they rob, cheat, outsmart and kill each other.
This 2 1/2 hour epic has 2 distinct parts. The first 2 hours is all set up. A film that looks like a pale imitation of a Quentin Tarantino film by Writer/Director Jaymes Samuel (best known as collaborating with Baz Luhrman and Jay Z on the soundtrack for THE GREAT GATSBY). He is clearly influenced by Tarantno and tries to mimic Tarantino’s style - and, like most imitators - falls short mainly because he focused on the style and not the substance of what Tarantino does.
He populates this film with some of the finest Black Actors working today - Idris Elba, DelRoy Lindo, Jonathan Majors, Lakeith Stanfield and Zazie Bettz are all underutilized during the first 2 hours of this film and I had myself wondering why they agreed to do this film.
And then came the last 1/2 hour.
The final portion of THE HARDER THEY FALL is about as good a piece of film-making that you will see, with the showdown between the 2 rival gangs really paying off and Majors, Lindo and Elba (especially) finally get their chance to shine - and answers the question as to why these fine performers were in this film. It’s as if Samuels had a great ending in mind and patched together a film (and plot) that would get the characters to that point.
And then there is the case of Regina King - who was acting in a different kind of film all along. She reigns in this film like a true MOVIE STAR, commanding the screen - and your attention - whenever she shows up. She has a wonderful monologue in the underwhelming first 2 hours of this film - that is worthy of Tarantino - and shows why King is undeniably a MOVIE STAR. This monologue alone almost makes the first 2 hours bearable.
You will have a conundrum when contemplating seeing THE HARDER THEY FALL. Will you be willing to sit through 2 hours of a B- film (a “C” film, if it wasn’t for King) to, finally, be rewarded with an A+ ending?
The choice is yours.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jem and the Holograms (2015) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Being a teenager is a confusing time, we want to be accepted, popular, and, at times, invisible. In a world where you feel overlooked and ignored, it is gratifying to have a voice, an identity, some special aspect that is going to make you stand out and be accepted. Jem and the Holograms attempts to make this a theme. Creating your identity and having the ability to shape and form it into a way that it becomes your own shield against the ills of the world. It is a very promising concept and idea when attempting to update the series for today’s audience. Unfortunately there isn’t much substance to the film. The substance that is apparent is quite shallow and undeveloped.
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Instead of sticking with the original premise and backstory of the popular cartoon series of the 1980s, it tries to modernize itself in a way that holds onto little of its origin other than the name of some of the characters. There is no heart with this film, there is no feeling driving the movie that makes you want to cheer for the characters to become successful. This is mainly due to the film not giving audiences a chance to like the characters or even learn who they really are. The film makes everything look so easy within the music industry. The basic understanding is that if you post a video online, you might be discovered and are immediately offered a recording contract. This storyline will resonate with many of the “Generation Me” and “Kardashian Culture” crowd that is filled dreams of becoming famous for doing little to nothing.
The story is beyond far-fetched in that it every problem, riddle, issue, and negative moment is resolved in the next scene. There is no struggle for any of the characters other than the possibility that their aunt and foster mother may lose their house, but even this is solved within two minutes.
The one shining light in the film is Juliette Lewis as Erica Raymond, CEO of Starlight Records who gives Jem and her sisters the opportunity to take over the spotlight. She is not only the comic relief, but serves the role as a conniving, manipulative recording manager. This is pretty much the only similarity that exists between this film and the original series. Erica prompts older audiences to think of the Misfits (the nemesis to the Holograms) who were continuously trying to sabotage their careers. The rest of the cast, leaves one not feeling connected to them or their storylines. There is no development for any of the people throughout the film. It almost seems as though when making the film, the production team sat around thinking, “It’s Jem, the music will carry the story.” Unfortunately, the music that is included goes no further than being the typical pop music similar to that which is on every station today. There is nothing that stands out about the music, as catchy as it is, that makes you feel as though you should become invested in who these girls are or even that they have something that makes them stand out. With the time that has passed since the cartoon appeared on television, there should have been more investment in who these girls are and why we should care about them. Audiences don’t have that opportunity, as they become famous, seemingly overnight. It almost makes one want to root against them.
There is a real opportunity missed with this film to combine the original show, catering to older audiences who watched the show as children, and update it for a newer generation. The film would have been much better served with inclusion of many of the elements that made the series have such appeal. The approach is very juvenile and rushed. The original show was more than music, it was about the relationships formed by many of the characters and the various adventures that they would pursue. There were stories with depth and continuity which reinforced the aspects of working hard and achievement of goals. The whole movie looks like a diary entry of what an American tween would see as their life in entertainment. The one positive note about the film is the way that it incorporates social media in the development of the story. It demonstrates the connection that is and can be made through music and pop culture.
Sadly, in contrast to the original series, the film demeans and belittles women. Its approach is short-sighted and does not deal with any aspect of reality that one would expect. Jem is nothing more than a manufactured pop music story. There is little that audiences could relate to. In a sense, it is anti-music, and anti-intellectual. The film itself, is filler and a corruption of the origin story and the time that has passed since it first debuted. Audiences of Jem the TV series may be appalled at what they witness, if they do decide to actually watch the film. For younger audiences, this film reinforces the belief that all kids should get participation trophies because they tried. There is the sense that if you just show up, the opportunity will be handed to you. There is no real work on the screen and it seems as though there was no real work or effort put into creating this film. Younger audiences will tout the music and friendship displayed. Older audiences who were fans of the television show will be soundly disappointed in what they witness on the screen. It is a bastardization of what Jem should be in a modern age. There is no soul to this film. Every note that it hits is flat.
http://sknr.net/2015/10/23/jem-and-the-holograms/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Typical Oscar Fodder
There are two types of film critic when it comes to the Academy Awards. Those who enjoy the glamour that the Oscars bring every spring and those who despise what the awards mean for film. I’m in the latter camp, I find them out of touch with what movie-watching audiences enjoy and feel an overhaul is necessary to reflect that.
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
That’s not to say the Oscars reward bad films of course. Not at all. I do feel however that they, on the whole, reward technical brilliance, rather than the deeper aspects of movie-making and forget to include mass-market crowd-pleasers for fear of cheapening the ceremony.
The film everyone is talking about this year is The Revenant. With an incredible 12 nominations, it’s the one to watch in 2016. But is it actually any good?
With Birdman director Alejandro G. Iñárritu at the helm, it promises more of the exceptional performances and technical perfection he brought to that film, and that’s exactly what you get.
Leonardo DiCaprio, nominated for yet another Academy Award, stars as Hugh Glass, a hunter left for dead by his supposed comrades after a vicious bear attack leaves him gravely injured. He is supported by man-of-the-moment Tom Hardy, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor award, and British rising star Will Poulter (The Maze Runner).
DiCaprio’s Glass is a commanding presence throughout The Revenant as he tracks down those who betrayed him. With little English dialogue, it’s impressive that he is able to convey such emotion, but he does so perfectly. He’s certainly worthy of his Oscar nod, but whether or not he will be fifth time lucky remains to be seen.
Elsewhere, the cinematography that Iñárritu uses is nothing short of breath-taking. Beautiful lingering shots of snow-capped mountains, icy waterfalls and baron forests all make for a documentary-level of awe and it’s here where the film succeeds the most.
Unfortunately, the rest of The Revenant falls a little flat. The story is incredibly pedestrian considering the film’s 156 minute running time and whilst the cast are all excellent, the material is a little staid ranging from the ordinary, to the bizarre. One scene in particular had me remembering The Empire Strikes Back of all films.
The intriguing plot that Iñárritu brought to Birdman is nowhere to be seen here and as the film reaches its mightily predictable conclusion, it runs out of steam. There’s only so much landscape, however beautiful, that you can throw at an audience.
Overall, The Revenant is a technical masterpiece, flanked by impressive performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Will Poulter in particular, but the story just isn’t there. It may have a dozen award nominations to its name, but in this case, it’s nothing more than style over substance.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/01/17/typical-oscar-fodder-the-revenant-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Swan (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Darren Aronofsky’s Black Swan has received a lot of attention since it was released what feels like many moons ago. With countless award nominations on both sides of the Atlantic, it could perhaps be one of the most talked about films of the decade; but is it all style over substance? Let’s find out.
What strikes you immediately is just how beautifully choreographed and styled the film is throughout, with some outstanding cinematography and wonderful set pieces. However, this doesn’t necessarily constitute to a brilliant film and unfortunately, whilst being technically near-perfect; Black Swan falls down in a few key areas for it to be considered flawless.
Natalie Portman stars as troubled ballet dancer (if you hadn’t already guessed) Nina Sayers who dreams of becoming one of the world’s best dancers. This becomes apparent from the off, with a very possessive mother (played very well by Barbara Hershey) who is constantly striving for her to improve on what she has accomplished. The local ballet company, run by a fantastic Vincent Cassel begins a new season with the renowned ballet, Swan Lake. Cue Nina to receive the amazing honour of playing the Swan Queen.
However, it’s not all plain sailing as she tries to throw off the frigid, stiff dancing she has been practicing for years. Whilst this may sound a little dull, on screen it becomes a great treat to watch, thanks partly to Aronofsky’s fantastic cinematography and Portman’s compelling performance. Her acting is so superb that you feel as if you are there with her whilst she is going through the horror of creating the ‘perfect’ dance. What shines through all the doom and gloom is how much soul the film has; many similar movies lose their characters and ultimately the soul because so much attention goes into the finer points of the picture. Thankfully, this is not the case here.
Unfortunately, as with any film, there are a few negative points which detract from the whole experience. Whilst Portman, Cassel and Kunis all have excellent on screen chemistry; it remains difficult for the viewer to differentiate between Nina’s imagination and what is reality; it is definitely a film that needs to be watched, one moment of drifting from its attention will leave you scuppered and lost. This is most annoying, because if it weren’t for this, there would be nothing wrong apart from a very sudden ending.
Overall, Black Swan is a sight to behold because no review can do it justice. Portman’s performance is by far the best part of this very thrilling and exciting film. Yes, it may not be as perfect as all the award nominations make it out to be, but you would be hard pushed to find a more compelling and ultimately more satisfying cinema experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/02/13/black-swan-2011/
What strikes you immediately is just how beautifully choreographed and styled the film is throughout, with some outstanding cinematography and wonderful set pieces. However, this doesn’t necessarily constitute to a brilliant film and unfortunately, whilst being technically near-perfect; Black Swan falls down in a few key areas for it to be considered flawless.
Natalie Portman stars as troubled ballet dancer (if you hadn’t already guessed) Nina Sayers who dreams of becoming one of the world’s best dancers. This becomes apparent from the off, with a very possessive mother (played very well by Barbara Hershey) who is constantly striving for her to improve on what she has accomplished. The local ballet company, run by a fantastic Vincent Cassel begins a new season with the renowned ballet, Swan Lake. Cue Nina to receive the amazing honour of playing the Swan Queen.
However, it’s not all plain sailing as she tries to throw off the frigid, stiff dancing she has been practicing for years. Whilst this may sound a little dull, on screen it becomes a great treat to watch, thanks partly to Aronofsky’s fantastic cinematography and Portman’s compelling performance. Her acting is so superb that you feel as if you are there with her whilst she is going through the horror of creating the ‘perfect’ dance. What shines through all the doom and gloom is how much soul the film has; many similar movies lose their characters and ultimately the soul because so much attention goes into the finer points of the picture. Thankfully, this is not the case here.
Unfortunately, as with any film, there are a few negative points which detract from the whole experience. Whilst Portman, Cassel and Kunis all have excellent on screen chemistry; it remains difficult for the viewer to differentiate between Nina’s imagination and what is reality; it is definitely a film that needs to be watched, one moment of drifting from its attention will leave you scuppered and lost. This is most annoying, because if it weren’t for this, there would be nothing wrong apart from a very sudden ending.
Overall, Black Swan is a sight to behold because no review can do it justice. Portman’s performance is by far the best part of this very thrilling and exciting film. Yes, it may not be as perfect as all the award nominations make it out to be, but you would be hard pushed to find a more compelling and ultimately more satisfying cinema experience.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/02/13/black-swan-2011/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Day Shift (2022) in Movies
Oct 12, 2022
Vampires vs. The Bronx, Night Teeth, and now Day Shift. Someone over at Netflix really likes investing in vampire horror-comedies of varying quality. Day Shift, for the most part, is a competent and entertaining action flick, thanks in no small part to the cast. Jamie Foxx has shown time and again that he's more than capable of taking on lead duties, whether he's winning Oscars for music biopics, or kicking vampire ass up and down California. His chemistry with Dave Franco lays the foundation for much of the films humour, and introduces a kind of buddy cop dynamic into the mix. The cast is further bolstered with some smaller roles from industry veteran Peter Stormare, and living legend Snoop Dogg (patiently waiting for a Big John spin-off project).
The action scenes are a whole lot of fun. The vampires contort and twist in horrible ways, and are dispatched in equally horrible ways. There's plenty of blood and viscera, limbs flying about the place, decapitations. It's all well choreographed, fast paced, and hugely entertaining.
There's a lot going for Day Shift, but it does faulter at times. After an exciting opening scene, there's quite a lengthy dip in pacing. This leads to a lot of exposition dumps and world building. Crafting lore for a new IP is something that can be tricky to navigate, and Day Shift misses the mark in this instance. It's all well and good providing the audience with background information that would be everyday knowledge for these characters, but it's executed in a way that feels wayward and messy, and almost 100% through dialogue. And example of a film that does this kind of thing well would be Zombieland. Withing minutes, we know plenty of in-universe rules for surviving the zombie apocalypse, and it's done in a fun, breezy, and brisk manner. In contrast, Day Shift puts a pin in any sort of excitement to throw all sorts of exposition at us in a way that feels like it's relying on potential sequels for any kind of pay off. It's just a little deflating, and not even Foxx's charisma can keep it from becoming boring.
To add to the negative side of things, the villain of the piece is aggressively forgettable. There's a semi-clever reference to how estate realtors are evil, but other than that, she's just an uninspired bad guy that causes the protagonists mild peril. The narrative also suffers from the age old issue of characters doing stupid things to drive the plot forward. Some of the events that unfold don't make a huge amount of sense with what we've been told previously.
Despite these misgivings and a messy middle, Day Shift ends on a high note, with an entertaining final third, and ultimately manages to be a perfectly passable popcorn movie. What it lacks in substance, it's makes up for in style, and will surely leave most with a smile on their faces by the time the credits roll.
The action scenes are a whole lot of fun. The vampires contort and twist in horrible ways, and are dispatched in equally horrible ways. There's plenty of blood and viscera, limbs flying about the place, decapitations. It's all well choreographed, fast paced, and hugely entertaining.
There's a lot going for Day Shift, but it does faulter at times. After an exciting opening scene, there's quite a lengthy dip in pacing. This leads to a lot of exposition dumps and world building. Crafting lore for a new IP is something that can be tricky to navigate, and Day Shift misses the mark in this instance. It's all well and good providing the audience with background information that would be everyday knowledge for these characters, but it's executed in a way that feels wayward and messy, and almost 100% through dialogue. And example of a film that does this kind of thing well would be Zombieland. Withing minutes, we know plenty of in-universe rules for surviving the zombie apocalypse, and it's done in a fun, breezy, and brisk manner. In contrast, Day Shift puts a pin in any sort of excitement to throw all sorts of exposition at us in a way that feels like it's relying on potential sequels for any kind of pay off. It's just a little deflating, and not even Foxx's charisma can keep it from becoming boring.
To add to the negative side of things, the villain of the piece is aggressively forgettable. There's a semi-clever reference to how estate realtors are evil, but other than that, she's just an uninspired bad guy that causes the protagonists mild peril. The narrative also suffers from the age old issue of characters doing stupid things to drive the plot forward. Some of the events that unfold don't make a huge amount of sense with what we've been told previously.
Despite these misgivings and a messy middle, Day Shift ends on a high note, with an entertaining final third, and ultimately manages to be a perfectly passable popcorn movie. What it lacks in substance, it's makes up for in style, and will surely leave most with a smile on their faces by the time the credits roll.