Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
A fun, family friendly action comedy
JUMANJI was a fun film from the middle 1990's, starring the late, great ROBIN WILLIAMS. And, when I heard that they were making a sequel to this film 22 years later and starring Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, I thought "no thanks" and even skipped seeking it out at movie theaters over the winter, even after I heard that it was "pretty fun".
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
I finally caught up to it on a recent flight and I have to admit - I was wrong for skipping this film JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE is a fun romp with The Rock ably filling the lead role, aided by a strong supporting cast.
JUMANJI was about a board came come to life. JUMANJI: WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE has the same board game that morphs itself into a video game and when 4 High Schoolers stumble across it while serving detention, well...comedy - and adventure - ensue.
The four high schoolers are typical THE BREAKFAST CLUB stereotypes. The nerdy boy, the hot girl, the jock boy and the dorky girl. When these four are transported into the game they take on the outward appearance - and skills - of their video game characters - the nerdy body becomes the dashing hero (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson). The hot girl becomes the dumpy (male!) professor (Jack Black). The jock becomes the un-athletic short kid (Kevin Hart) and the dorky girl becomes the kick-ass girl (Karen Gillan). It is the 4 actors playing their high school counterparts in their bodies that is the core of this film - and the center of the charm and fun of this film. All 4 shine. Johnson and Hart (back together after CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE) show that the chemistry they showed with each other in the previous film is no fluke. Gillan (Nebula in the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY films) shows that she can do kick-ass well - and with a wink in her eye. But it is the performance of Black that steals things. Someone said to me that Black was made to play a "hot high school girl" and I would have to agree. He almost steals the movie.
Director Jake Kasdan (the TV series NEW GIRL) understands what kind of film that he is making, so keeps the fun and action going at a superficial, almost cartoon level, never really stopping to breathe (or to think). He keeps things light - and family friendly - with just enough "almost" dirty jokes to keep young and old alike interested. It earns - but never crosses the line - of it's PG-13 rating. There is talk of a sequel, and I, for one, am looking forward to it.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Merlin's Children in Books
Jan 23, 2020
First off, allow me to commend Megan for making it past what I would call the Snowpocalyspse level, in which case the weather was nastily for a week in early January. I'm sure that says a lot, and that was not sarcasm whatsoever.
Merlin's Children starts off pretty much exactly where Taliesin Ascendant left off, and we finally get answers from the prologue of Book 1.
Or maybe I just now realized the answer to the question and it was in my face the entire time. *shrugs* I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter since as long as the question is answered, then it's all good.
I still have to applaud the author for continuing to be practically flawless in grammar/spelling (I make it a point to mention these things :p).
But I do find it really weird that the characters seem to draw their eyebrows downward a lot. I'm not sure if it's possible or I'm just those peeps who can only raise my eyebrows, but each time it was mentioned, I was pretty tempted to run into the bathroom, stare at the mirror and see if it was possible.
My mother would have thought I was insane if she saw me so I didn't do it.
HEY! HERE'S A POSSIBLE HUGE SPOILER! I sort of wanted what happened to Jamison to be something else. Maybe because I was thinking of what I read about the Nikita finale in TV Guide, in which I sorrily missed. -_- I am glad that some of the characters from the very first book return though. ^_^
On a final note, Megan has upped her game a bit compared to the last 2 books (yes, I'm staring at the raw ratings for the series). It's more fast paced, has more action and if anything, I sort of have a short attention span. A semi one, since I can tolerate SOME boring books to the end. :D But then the review turns out bad. I think that was irrelevant.
For some reason, I keep reading Ermengarde's name as "Er Ma Gawd" so I ended up reading "so and so and Ermagawd..." every so often. That might actually be how the name is pronounced, but I'm honestly not sure so I'll just call her OMG. :D
Another thing irrelevant I suppose.
---------------------
Original Rating: 4.5
Review copy provided by the author for review
Formatting has been lost due to copy and paste.
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/02/review-merlins-children-by-megan-joel-peterson.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Merlin's Children starts off pretty much exactly where Taliesin Ascendant left off, and we finally get answers from the prologue of Book 1.
Or maybe I just now realized the answer to the question and it was in my face the entire time. *shrugs* I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter since as long as the question is answered, then it's all good.
I still have to applaud the author for continuing to be practically flawless in grammar/spelling (I make it a point to mention these things :p).
But I do find it really weird that the characters seem to draw their eyebrows downward a lot. I'm not sure if it's possible or I'm just those peeps who can only raise my eyebrows, but each time it was mentioned, I was pretty tempted to run into the bathroom, stare at the mirror and see if it was possible.
My mother would have thought I was insane if she saw me so I didn't do it.
HEY! HERE'S A POSSIBLE HUGE SPOILER! I sort of wanted what happened to Jamison to be something else. Maybe because I was thinking of what I read about the Nikita finale in TV Guide, in which I sorrily missed. -_- I am glad that some of the characters from the very first book return though. ^_^
On a final note, Megan has upped her game a bit compared to the last 2 books (yes, I'm staring at the raw ratings for the series). It's more fast paced, has more action and if anything, I sort of have a short attention span. A semi one, since I can tolerate SOME boring books to the end. :D But then the review turns out bad. I think that was irrelevant.
For some reason, I keep reading Ermengarde's name as "Er Ma Gawd" so I ended up reading "so and so and Ermagawd..." every so often. That might actually be how the name is pronounced, but I'm honestly not sure so I'll just call her OMG. :D
Another thing irrelevant I suppose.
---------------------
Original Rating: 4.5
Review copy provided by the author for review
Formatting has been lost due to copy and paste.
This review and more can be found at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/02/review-merlins-children-by-megan-joel-peterson.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Funny Girl
8.0
Rate It
Book
Funny Girl - the latest novel from Nick Hornby, the million-copy bestselling author of About a Boy...
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated The Hunger Games in Books
Oct 5, 2020
I am probably the last person posting a book review for The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.
When the book came out, the movie followed shortly after. In that time, I decided to watch the movie rather than reading the book. The movie was amazing and I loved it. But a few years later, when this book found its way to me again, I needed to read it and solve the ultimate battle – movie versus books. As it usually happens in my case – the book version won – without any doubts.
The Hunger Games is a story about Katniss Everdeen, a girl from District 12, who lives with her mum and little sister in the poorest district of them all. She hunts in the woods with her friend/crush Gale in order to provide food for her family.
Surrounded by all twelve districts, there is the Capitol, the shiny city where all the rich and popular people live. A long time ago, the districts tried to go into war and lost. As part of the surrender, each year the Capitol organises a live TV show, called The Hunger Games. Every year, a boy and a girl from each district are randomly chosen to battle in an arena until the last man standing.
When Katniss’s little sister is chosen as the girl tribute from district 12, Katniss volunteers to take her place without even thinking. Both her and Peeta (the male tribute) are then headed over to the Capitol and the preparations for the games can begin.
In a world where people like watching children kill each other, it can be pretty upsetting to see this as a reality. I can’t help but think that unfortunately, people have some instinct left in them and are unconsciously enjoying watching other people suffer. Think of the gladiator fights, ultimate fighting matches and other events similar to these.
Putting that aside, what I love about this book was the attention to details. From the descriptions of the districts, to the preparations for the games. And the game itself was so well written that I kept turning page after page, desperate to see what will happen next.
I love Katniss, her bravery, her love for her little sister, all the sacrifices that she has made. Starting with her volunteering instead of her sister, to her love with Gale. Her spirit to make things right can be felt throughout the whole book. Her rebellion and her stance with all the people that are not treated fairly by the Capitol.
Even though presented as a Young-Adult, I am convinced this is a book every adult should read as well, and have a few thoughts about their surroundings. I loved the first book, and I can’t wait to start reading the second book of the series as well.
When the book came out, the movie followed shortly after. In that time, I decided to watch the movie rather than reading the book. The movie was amazing and I loved it. But a few years later, when this book found its way to me again, I needed to read it and solve the ultimate battle – movie versus books. As it usually happens in my case – the book version won – without any doubts.
The Hunger Games is a story about Katniss Everdeen, a girl from District 12, who lives with her mum and little sister in the poorest district of them all. She hunts in the woods with her friend/crush Gale in order to provide food for her family.
Surrounded by all twelve districts, there is the Capitol, the shiny city where all the rich and popular people live. A long time ago, the districts tried to go into war and lost. As part of the surrender, each year the Capitol organises a live TV show, called The Hunger Games. Every year, a boy and a girl from each district are randomly chosen to battle in an arena until the last man standing.
When Katniss’s little sister is chosen as the girl tribute from district 12, Katniss volunteers to take her place without even thinking. Both her and Peeta (the male tribute) are then headed over to the Capitol and the preparations for the games can begin.
In a world where people like watching children kill each other, it can be pretty upsetting to see this as a reality. I can’t help but think that unfortunately, people have some instinct left in them and are unconsciously enjoying watching other people suffer. Think of the gladiator fights, ultimate fighting matches and other events similar to these.
Putting that aside, what I love about this book was the attention to details. From the descriptions of the districts, to the preparations for the games. And the game itself was so well written that I kept turning page after page, desperate to see what will happen next.
I love Katniss, her bravery, her love for her little sister, all the sacrifices that she has made. Starting with her volunteering instead of her sister, to her love with Gale. Her spirit to make things right can be felt throughout the whole book. Her rebellion and her stance with all the people that are not treated fairly by the Capitol.
Even though presented as a Young-Adult, I am convinced this is a book every adult should read as well, and have a few thoughts about their surroundings. I loved the first book, and I can’t wait to start reading the second book of the series as well.
Ben 10 Ultimate Alien: Xenodrome Plus
Games and Entertainment
App
It’s Hero Time! Test your skills and reflexes in this action-packed turn-based fighting game with...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Sisu (2023) in Movies
Dec 4, 2023
Pretty Darned Entertaining
The BankofMarquis stumbled across a Finnish action flick that makes Quentin Tarantino Movies - and the John Wick films - look like Disney movies.
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
SISU tells the story of the waning days of WWII in Finland where a lone man has left the death and destruction of war behind to live a life of solitude. Into his world come some retreating NAZI’s who (to their detriment, they will soon find out) decide to NOT leave this lone man alone.
Chaos (and violence) ensues.
A variation of the “Man with No Name” type of action film that pits this lone person who just wants to be left alone against a group of thugs, SISU (a Finnish word that has no direct translation but roughly translates to “persevering against tremendous odds”) generates a fun action/revenge flick that is extremely violent…and extremely implausible (but that’s part of the fun).
While this is a Finnish film, all of the actors/characters speak English (except when the Nazi’s speak German), so there is no translating needed.
Jorma Tommila (a veteran Finnish actor that has no U.S. credits that I could find) is stoic, rugged and damned determined as the nameless loner (he gets named about half-way through the film) that perseveres and this is the best part of his performance. His sparkling blue eyes constantly seem active and alive even though the rest of his face is stoic and his body is bruised, bloodied, beaten and mud-covered. His internal resolve shines through in his eyes and really holds the film together well.
Aksel Hennie (who you might know as Alex Vogel one of the Astronauts that is in the ship that turns back to get Matt Damon aka THE MARTIAN) as the Head Nazi is quite good and just as determined to use his men as fodder in his vendetta against the nameless man while Jack Doolan (Horse Tommy in THE BOYS) is ruthless as his main henchman and Mimosa Willamo (the Finnish TV series DEADWIND) is strong and determined as a prisoner held by the Nazis.
Director Jalmari Helander (again, no U.S. credits that I can find) does a wonderful job of keeping the action moving and the choreography of the piece simple (you know where everyone is at all times, so when something comes out of nowhere, you have a pretty good idea as to who/what it is). He does ratchet the violence up to a Tarantino-John Wick- The Equalizer level, so if you are squeamish, this film is not for you.
But, if you are into action films, then…hoo-boy….is SISU a film for you!
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 8, 2021
An entertaining pose-struck by Johansson and Pugh
A long time in the waiting (again) but "Black Widow" is an excellent addition to the Marvel canon: almost a "Rogue One" in the series, taking us back to fill in some gaps after "Captain America: Civil War". It's just great to have ANY Marvel back in the cinema.... that Michael Giacchino Marvel tune set the hairs going on the back of my neck!
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Positives:
- Loving the heart in this Marvel! There's more sense of "family" than in F9! Johansson and Pugh, in particular, have a great on-screen relationship, and nice sisterly bickering goes on. There's a fabulous scene in a petrol (gas) station between the pair that really shows what class acting is available in this outing.
- David Harbour adds some fine comedy as the "Red Guardian", complete with action figure! Seeing him squeezing into his old uniform reminded me strongly of Mr Incredible! And the relationship with Rachel Weisz's Melina is also great fun.
- Completing the strong acting complement is Ray Winstone as villain Dreykov. It's a role he's played so many times before that he could probably do it in his sleep: but still great to watch. A shout-out too to the lovely Olga Kurylenko, looking decidedly unlovely here! (She isn't given very much to do as Taskmaster though.)
- There were some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments for me: both through witty dialogue and visual gags. A helicopter 'landing' was particularly snort-worthy!
- Lorne Balfe delivers another stonking soundtrack, full of Russian undertones. Also great is a twisted version of Nirvana's "Teen Spirit" over the opening titles.
Negatives:
- Now I KNOW you need to suspend belief during Marvel films, but the "Red Room" location (no spoilers, and no - not the "50 Shades" type) stretches that too far. It leads to an over-blown, free-falling finale that somewhat lessened the impact for me of the rather more realistic flow of the movie to that point.
- Tonally the movie is rather inconsistent. As an example, the start of the movie is played 'straight', as is the role of Alexei. But when he reappears later in the film - and it took me a long time to appreciate the jailbird character was in fact him - then he suddenly becomes the comic heart of the movie.
- I loved the way the film built the relationships between the characters. So this is NOT a negative from me. But I *suspect* some Marvel action fans may find the narrative portions of the movie too slow for their liking.
Summary Thoughts on "Black Widow": Black Widow has always struck me as an odd and slightly second-rate member of The Avengers. After all, she has no specific "superpowers", so how has she survived all of the physical abuse to date? So, given what we know happened to her in "Endgame", I questioned whether this was an origin story that would hold much interest with me. But the knack here is that it really isn't an "origin story" at all. It covers her early life, pre-titles, but then skips all the intermediate biopic stuff to drill into this specific adventure in her life. And the quality of the acting and the relationships that are built up delivered something that I greatly enjoyed.
Cate Shortland seems an odd choice to front a huge movie like this (she has a very short movie CV) but I think she's done a great job here. I'd put it in the top quartile of Marvel movies for me.
And BTW, as it's Marvel so as you might expect there is an end credits scene. You have to wait until the very end of the credits for it (so you can appreciate Lorne Balfe's score some more). But it is worth waiting for, re-introducing a character from one of the Phase 4 TV series.
(For the full graphical version, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/07/07/black-widow-a-posers-guide-to-the-incredibles-3/. One Mann's Movies is also on Facebook and Tiktok (@onemannsmovies).)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lighthouse (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Growing up I remember watching Alfred Hitchcock Presents on USA network and catching the occasional twilight zone on the weekends. In fact, it’s hard to believe that our second TV was a small black and white 13” TV that we would watch all types of shows on when our living room TV was otherwise preoccupied. While all these shows were only available in black and white, they still portrayed a frightening imagery that likely would lose a lot of their suspense if the show had been presented in color. The Lighthouse, the second feature directed by Robert Eggers (The Witch) utilizes not only a black and white picture to build on the dread of loneliness the film wishes to convey, but also presents itself in a boxy format, to better mimic silent films of a bygone era.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
The Lighthouse features Willem Dafoe as Thomas Wake, a grizzled old lighthouse keeper who begins his four-week duty on a secluded lighthouse with Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson), a man who has never worked a lighthouse in his young life. Thomas a former seaman who longs for his time back on the waves directs Ephraim around in his duties as one would expect from an experienced sea captain, teaching Ephraim the way of a lighthouse keeper. One rule that Ephraim must obey is that no one manages the light except Thomas, and no one may look upon its glory except Thomas. Reluctant to obey but not wishing to lose his pay Ephraim obliges and the two spend four weeks managing their duties as best as they can.
It’s after the four weeks, when their relief fails to arrive, that things begin to go off the rails. It is here where the secrets begin to emerge, and the audience is left to wonder whether these two will ever make it off the island. It’s here where the film begins to intensify as the struggle for survival with dwindling supplies, and the effects of loneliness and solitude begin to rear its ugly head. Where each mans sanity will be tested and the bond, they have built over the past four weeks will be put to the test.
The Lighthouse is a movie that is difficult to put into any one genre. Much of the movie plays out like a drama, where the old man and the newcomer work to overcome their differences as one mentors the other. The movie always has an underlying sense of dread, wondering what will come next. As the film progresses, the genre changes, and the suspense and horror begin to develop. What was a job where each man understood their roles becomes a race for survival. The questions begin to mount as we see the characters relationship morph and change. Why did Ephraim choose a life of solitude so far from civilization?
Why doesn’t Thomas allow anyone to man the light but him? What is each men hiding from one another?
William Dafoe does another outstanding job as the gruff, old lighthouse keeper. His accent, mannerisms and evening toasts all are performed with such authenticity that it’s hard to distinguish the actor from the character.
The real surprise was the performance of Robert Pattinson who is best known for his previous works on the Twilight series. He brings so much character to the screen that I would have had a hard time recognizing him if I didn’t know he was in the movie. He delivers a performance that is likely to garner Oscar buzz, something that wouldn’t surprise fans of William Dafoe, but might shock fans of Robert Pattinson. Robert Pattinson in this role is by far the best performance he’s ever done in his career and all, including his most devoted fans, will be pleasantly surprised by his performance in this film.
As I discussed in the opening paragraph, some films and shows play best to the medium that they are recorded on. Much like the old Alfred Hitchcock movies/shows, The Lighthouse benefits from its use of black and white and its boxy presentation. While there is certainly plenty of dialog throughout, it still takes on a very “silent movie” feel. One that you could almost expect to see placards of dialog appear instead of the actual words coming out on the screen. It is this stunning use of the above that truly brings The Lighthouse alive, and if done in color would have lost much of its personality in the process.
There is a ton of imagery and symbolism which I’m sure will be argued about on numerous Reddit posts for the next few days and weeks to come. I won’t pretend to understand much of it, and I believe that Eggers leaves many of what we see open for interpretation. Everything from the lighthouse itself, to the seagulls, to the mermaids (yes you read that correctly) all are open for discussion. After watching it I couldn’t help but wonder what the discussion of this particular film would have led to in my theater appreciation course back in college. That’s not to say that you can’t simply sit back and enjoy it for what it is, I just think its far more beneficial to think of what was seen and try to understand the meaning of it all.
The Lighthouse isn’t a movie that will appeal to everyone. For those who want a scary and suspenseful movie, it would be difficult to recommend.
While it certainly has suspense, it suspenseful in the way of an old Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock movie, as opposed to something more recent like Paranormal Activity. The black and white video and the odd boxy aspect ratio may turn off a lot of folks as well, although I certainly don’t see it being as fascinating if it was done in any other way. There is a lot to love in this movie, and the character portrayals deserve the Oscar buzz that is certainly right around the corner. It’s a movie that is far easier to experience then to explain in a review, so I encourage those with even a little bit of curiosity to take the plunge and experience it for yourself.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Network (1976) in Movies
Feb 9, 2018
All time classic
"I'M MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!"
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
One of the most famous lines in film history is as impactful today as it was when it was first uttered by fictitious news anchor Howard Beale in Paddy Chayefsky's (seemingly) parody of where TV and TV news is heading, 1976's NETWORK.
The astonishing thing about this terrific motion picture is how prescient it is. News is now entertainment. Appeal to the disaffected masses. Drive our message to the viewers. Be provocative. The 6:00 news had "less than 1 minute of hard news, the rest was sex, scandal, brutal crime sports, children with incurable diseases and lost puppies."
Sound familiar? This isn't from today, it came from this movie that was made 42 years ago as a cautionary tale of what might happen.
Besides the social ramifications, how does this film hold up? Quite well, indeed. A rare 10 star BankofMarquis film. Starting with the great Paddy Chayefsky's Oscar winning Screenplay. This was the capper on a brilliant career from Chayefsky - who also won Oscar's for his screenplay for 1972's THE HOSPITAL (I'll have to check that one out) and 1956's MARTY.
What does a terrific screenplay do? It attracts top-level talent clamoring to be in this - and they all deliver. Start with Faye Dunaway who won the Lead Actress Oscar for her role as Entertainment Head Diane Christensen - a driven, work hard, play hard individual who has the idea to make news "entertainment". Lost in the fog of time (and MOMMIE DEAREST) is the fact that in the mid-1970's, Dunaway was, perhaps, the greatest leading actress of the day and her skills are in sharp display in this film.
Joining Dunaway in terrific supporting turns are Robert Duvall, following his turns as Tom Hagen in GODFATHER I and II, as network head, Frank Hackett, Ned Beatty as Ned Jennings, President of the company that owns the network - he has a speech towards the tail end of this film that is as good - both in performance and in the way that it is shot - as anything put upon the screen - it was masterful. Speaking of masterful, Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress in one of the shortest performances to ever win. She is in this film for about 6 minutes in total - but she won her Oscar for a 5 minute scene that is, most definately Oscar-worthy.
And then there are the leading men. William Holden gives one of the last great performances of his extraordinary career as the "voice of reason in this film". He is our everyman caught up in the bizarre, absurd circumstances that evolve around him. It is his effort to try to make sense of this insanity that jumps off the screen. Holden was, deservedly, nominated for a Best Actor in a Leading Role Oscar, but lost (rightfully so) to Peter Finch's turn as crazed newsman turned prophet, Howard Beale. His maniacal (but not over the top) turn is one for the ages. If you do nothing else, see this film for his performance (but there is so, so much more to love here). Unfortunately, Finch passed away from a heart attack in between his Oscar nomination and win, and was the first posthumous winner in an acting role (sadly, Heath Ledger would join this "club" years later).
Finally, enough cannot be said about Sidney Lumet's direction. A movie like this would not succeed without a sure, steady and seasoned hand at the helm - and this is how I would describe Lumet's direction. He lets the camera roll and lets the actors and the screenplay take center stage, not drawing attention away, but adding to the themes of the film throughout - especially in Beatty's speech at the end.
NETWORK was nominated for (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Film of 1976. Did it lose out to other nominees ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN or TAXI DRIVER? Nope, it lost to ROCKY.
Let that sink in.
If you get a chance to watch (or rewatch) this film, I highly recommend you do so. For me, it was GREAT to watch this on the big screen with an audience, one of the reasons I love - and will continue to attend - the SECRET CINEMA series of films.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)