Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Giant (1956) in Movies
Sep 20, 2020
"đđ°đž đ©đŠ'đŽ đ”đ°đ° đłđȘđ€đ© đ”đ° đŹđȘđđ."
Out with the old, in with the new - for good and ill. Just a phenomenal epic in every way, doesn't feel a second of its gargantuan 201 minute runtime and honestly I wouldn't have minded another 201 minutes. Might very well be the best of its kind - a towering masterclass in K.O. acting (everyone is staggeringly great of course but James Dean gives what might unquestionably be the best performance of the 1950s), compelling characters, a laundry list of weighty (and still timely) themes (including but not limited to culture shock, classism, racial bigotry, sexism, toxic masculinity, parental selfishness, the intrinsic oppression that comes with capital or the lack thereof, and how we cope with the never-ending passage of time) handled with an uncommon sensitivity for the time, stunning cinematography, one hell of a grouping of period atmospheres, and no shortage of subversion. Just chock full of countless memorable quotes and damn good scenes one fired right after the other for almost three and a half hours. Comes temptingly close but not quite seamless, my biggest gripe is that with all this time we still never really get to see any of these couples *fall* in love - some of course had to be that way, sure (i.e. Hudson and Taylor as they reconcile with the trials of a whirlwind romance) but what about any of the others? Also has a couple arguably problematic tidbits, but honestly they're still far trumped by its sheer amount of nuance and perceptiveness - its willingness to confront itself, and the way it depicts time as an anomaly - stagnant one moment then stealthy the next. The only thing more fearsome than the years is yourself.
Out with the old, in with the new - for good and ill. Just a phenomenal epic in every way, doesn't feel a second of its gargantuan 201 minute runtime and honestly I wouldn't have minded another 201 minutes. Might very well be the best of its kind - a towering masterclass in K.O. acting (everyone is staggeringly great of course but James Dean gives what might unquestionably be the best performance of the 1950s), compelling characters, a laundry list of weighty (and still timely) themes (including but not limited to culture shock, classism, racial bigotry, sexism, toxic masculinity, parental selfishness, the intrinsic oppression that comes with capital or the lack thereof, and how we cope with the never-ending passage of time) handled with an uncommon sensitivity for the time, stunning cinematography, one hell of a grouping of period atmospheres, and no shortage of subversion. Just chock full of countless memorable quotes and damn good scenes one fired right after the other for almost three and a half hours. Comes temptingly close but not quite seamless, my biggest gripe is that with all this time we still never really get to see any of these couples *fall* in love - some of course had to be that way, sure (i.e. Hudson and Taylor as they reconcile with the trials of a whirlwind romance) but what about any of the others? Also has a couple arguably problematic tidbits, but honestly they're still far trumped by its sheer amount of nuance and perceptiveness - its willingness to confront itself, and the way it depicts time as an anomaly - stagnant one moment then stealthy the next. The only thing more fearsome than the years is yourself.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
âWe are what we believe we areâ.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with âThe Sixth Senseâ which â having rewatched it again recently â still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous âtwistâ. Since that film and his next, âUnbreakableâ in 2000, Shyamalan has âdone a bit of an Orson Wellesâ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with âSplitâ he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin⊠and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and⊠if the running time permitted⊠another 17 characters. But this is no âKind Hearts and Coronetsâ: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, âCarrieâ), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevinâs personalities, has kidnapped three teens â Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) â and is holding them captive in his home.
Itâs all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesnât fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoyâs film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers â â but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the âOoh, have you seen this yetâ question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psychoâs lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesnât necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result itâs a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoyâs clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin⊠and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and⊠if the running time permitted⊠another 17 characters. But this is no âKind Hearts and Coronetsâ: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, âCarrieâ), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevinâs personalities, has kidnapped three teens â Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) â and is holding them captive in his home.
Itâs all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesnât fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoyâs film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers â â but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the âOoh, have you seen this yetâ question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psychoâs lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesnât necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result itâs a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoyâs clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Outlaw King (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
After more than eight years of war with King Edward I of England (Stephen Dillane) the Scottish Nobles swear allegiance to the crown, ending the brutal. This includes Robert Bruce (Chris Pine) who is one of two men in line to be King of Scots. But by pledging his loyalty to they agree to be under the supervision of the Earl of Pembroke, Aymer de Valence (Sam Spruell). Robertâs father, Robert Bruce Senior (James Cosmo), had pushed for the peace with England but when he dies and the younger Robert is in charge a new fight for independence seems eminent. When the last remaining outlaw, William Wallace, is killed by the English Robert knows the time to fight is now. He decides to meet with his rival for the crown, John Comyn (Callan Mulvey), to have a united Scotland fighting for freedom. When Comyn denies Robertâs request and tells him he will use the information to be named King by Edward I, Robert kills him. This proves costly as it divides the Scottish Lords. Robert is determined and will take a small group loyal to him and fight one of the largest and most feared armies in the world.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, Iâll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didnât make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
This film is based on historical events and follows Robert the Bruce in his guerilla warfare battle for independence against the English. The film definitely seemed to take some poetic license with the story, but overall it feels realistic. Set in the medieval Scotland this is both a gritty and beautifully shot film. The wide shots show the beautiful country and coasts of Scotland. Then the day to day life and the battle scenes are dirty and grimy. The film is a brutal as advertised not only in the battle scenes but also throughout the film. Director David Mackenzie (Hell or High Water, Starred Up) crafts a well thought out story that moves briskly along. I had a couple of issues with the CGI not being super realistic. One brutal scene where someone drawn and quartered, Iâll let you research that, and the body looks like a blob rather than a torso. There were also some awkward cut scenes that didnât make sense to me. Really not making sense. The opening sequence of the film is done in one shot and might be one of the most impressively shot sequences I have seen in a movie in a long time. The performances are also really good. Billy Howie, Prince of Wales, is a good antagonist and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Douglas, is a marvelous madman protector of the Robert the Bruce.
I enjoyed this movie in the theater and think a Netflix view is going to be perfect. It is brutal so the faint of heart should be prepared to look away multiple times. It may get compared to another famous Scottish film from not too long ago and I think this is a nice update. But this is not that film, both in good and bad ways. I enjoyed my watching experience and will definitely catch it streaming on its release date.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Darren (64 KP) rated Any Which Way You Can (1980) in Movies
Nov 1, 2019
Right Turn Clyde
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was the first film i ever rented as a kid from the video shop. I was 5 at the time and the cover just drew me to it. My mum bless her let me have this and The Snowman. That was way back in 1985 and i have never lost any love for it.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
remember thinking, after reading the first couple of chapters of Fifty Shades of Grey two years ago, âIs this guy a vampire?â E.L. Jamesâ description of Christian Grey brought to mind Edward of the Twilight series and the heroine, Anastasia Steeleâs clumsy entrance into Greyâs office reminded me of Bella. I was so certain I would find out Grey was a vampire in the following chapters.
So it wasnât too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, âItâs an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. â That being said, Iâm hardly a book snob. Iâll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, Iâll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasnât too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask âWait. She went to WSU?â When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, âAlready disappointed.â We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Greyâs world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Greyâs wealth when he whispered, âThis movie is so full of it.â I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, âYou know you canât find parking that easily in Seattle.â
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. Itâs been reported that E. L. Jamesâ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it wonât be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that Iâm invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion â in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I donât think Iâve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
So it wasnât too much of a surprise for me when I learned the book started out as Twilight fan fiction. The hero and heroine were clearly patterned after Bella and Edward. So whenever someone asked me what the book was about, I would tell them, âItâs an awfully written Twilight with a lot of sex and some bondage and spanking. â That being said, Iâm hardly a book snob. Iâll read just about anything, and while I may complain the whole time, Iâll finish the series if one exists. But even casual readers should be able to recognize badly written fiction when it smacks them in the face like Fifty Shades of Grey.
When I heard they were making a movie, I figured it would be a Rated R or NC-17 version Twilight. I played the game along with other millions of women on who should be the leads. I picked Anna Kendrick and Ian Somerhalder. I wasnât too disappointed with the actual picks (I think that required actually caring), but the trailers did not endear Dakota Johnson to me at all. On the way to the screener, I joked with my husband, Gareth, that I expected to see Dakota Johnson and Jamie Dornan doing a lot of gasping or scowling with mouth agape since that seemed to be their go-to reactions in the book. (James is fond of writing about jaw-drops and sharp intakes of breath in her books).
I had to make him promise to refrain from making Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary during the movie, but within the first 5 minutes he recognized some landmarks and leaned over to ask âWait. She went to WSU?â When I nodded, Gareth, a proud UW Husky, leaned back, shook his head and muttered, âAlready disappointed.â We both actually enjoyed seeing the Seattle backdrop, all shiny and urbane, at least in Greyâs world. I thought Gareth was talking about the ridiculousness of Christian Greyâs wealth when he whispered, âThis movie is so full of it.â I raised my eyebrows at him and he said, âYou know you canât find parking that easily in Seattle.â
Being familiar with the books, I knew what to expect and for the most part, director Sam Taylor-Johnson, greatly improved on weak source material. Dakota Johnson was a pleasant surprise, making Anastasia smart, witty and much more relatable than the book Ana. Jamie Dornan was very easy to look at. Listening to? Not so much. Itâs been reported that E. L. Jamesâ insisted the dialogue from her books remain unchanged. One wonders if she also insisted Dornan deliver his parts as if he were reading her book. Reluctantly and under great duress.
Fans of the books will notice a few changes, and of course it wonât be as graphic as the book, but there are at least 25 minutes of steamy scenes. All in all, this may be one of those rare times the movie is better than the book. Like the books, now that Iâm invested, I will watch the next two in the trilogy. Mainly thanks to Dakota Johnson. If nothing else, I have to give Fifty Shades of Grey credit for inspiring passion â in debates about abusive relationships, true BDSM and the age-old bad boy vs. good men attraction. I donât think Iâve engaged in this many debates with friends and coworkers about a non-sci-fi movie before. It could very well inspire all kinds of other passion for those who give in and escort their significant other to this movie this weekend. But hopefully, unlike the leads in the movie, those inspired will reach a satisfying finish rather than a stylized fade-out to the morning after.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Ratchet & Clank (2016) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Based on the popular video game series for the Playstation systems, âRatchet and Clankâ has arrived looking to take the duoâs success to the big screen in a new animated adventure. The film follows the diabolical Chairman Drek (Paul Giamatti), who has a nefarious scheme that leaves planets destroyed in his wake. The government decides to hire an additional Ranger for protection which leads lowly mechanic Ratchet (James Arnold Taylor), to see his chance for greatness. Sadly the head of the Rangers; an ego-maniac named Captain Qwark (Jim Ward), dismisses the physically unimpressive Ratchet and thus crushes his dreams.
Fate steps in when a defective robot named Clank (David Kaye) arrives with news that will shake the very fabric of the galaxy. Ratchet and Clank team up to help the Rangers and must overcome all obstacles on all sides to save the day. The animation of the film is solid and it was a bit of a surprise that the film was not presented to us in 3D which has become the norm for animated film. The solid voice cast does a good job and there are more than a few nice celebrity voices along the way. The biggest issue I had with the film was that it was a bit dull and dragged in places. Our screener was loaded with children and families and I saw some leave the cinema during the film and did not return.
The movies takes a while to get going and there are more than a few nods to the game and other Playstation characters along the way. The biggest issue is that it seems as if the film is dedicated to hardcore fans of the series. I have played the last three games in the series and I found myself lost at times as it was clear that this was for those who have been there from the start. This is not to say that new fans will not be gained by the film, but one has to wonder how many children who are not familiar with the characters will have the patience to wait for things to get rolling in the film.
As it stands the film is a good first effort but may or may not be enough to successfully launch a long term franchise.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/28/ratchet-and-clank/
Fate steps in when a defective robot named Clank (David Kaye) arrives with news that will shake the very fabric of the galaxy. Ratchet and Clank team up to help the Rangers and must overcome all obstacles on all sides to save the day. The animation of the film is solid and it was a bit of a surprise that the film was not presented to us in 3D which has become the norm for animated film. The solid voice cast does a good job and there are more than a few nice celebrity voices along the way. The biggest issue I had with the film was that it was a bit dull and dragged in places. Our screener was loaded with children and families and I saw some leave the cinema during the film and did not return.
The movies takes a while to get going and there are more than a few nods to the game and other Playstation characters along the way. The biggest issue is that it seems as if the film is dedicated to hardcore fans of the series. I have played the last three games in the series and I found myself lost at times as it was clear that this was for those who have been there from the start. This is not to say that new fans will not be gained by the film, but one has to wonder how many children who are not familiar with the characters will have the patience to wait for things to get rolling in the film.
As it stands the film is a good first effort but may or may not be enough to successfully launch a long term franchise.
http://sknr.net/2016/04/28/ratchet-and-clank/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2020
Cut what worked in the musical and left in what didn't
I had heard that the movie version of the mega-Broadway hit musical CATS was a "total trainwreck" with bizarre performances and CGI that was incomplete and/or incompetently done making these CATS look more like FREAKS, so I was looking forward to a "so bad it's good" experience at the film. But, instead of being horrified or bemused, I felt another emotion while watching this...
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
BOREDOM.
I've never been a real fan of the Broadway production - I witnessed the original cast back in the early 1980's and had a follow-up viewing of the show on Broadway in the mid-to-late '90's when 2 people I know were in the cast and both times I enjoyed the music (for the most part) and the dancing was SUPERB, but I was left disappointed by the characters and the plot (or lack thereof) of this show.
And...that's the biggest problem with the film version of CATS, Director Tom Hooper (LES MISERABLES) decided to focus this film ON the characters and the performances - headlined by such stalwarts as Dame Judy Dench, Sir Ian McKellen, Idris, Elba, Ray Winstone, Jennifer Hudson, James Cordon and Rebel Wilson - and ignore the spectacle of the musical numbers and, most heinously, ignoring the dancing aspect of this musical. This approach, quite frankly, just did not work.
Now...add onto this questionable CGI (I'm being kind), a languid pace (I'm being kind) and performers who were miscast (I'm looking at you Idris Elba, Rebel Wilson, Ray Winstone and...if I'm being honest...Ian McKellan and Judy Dench), and don't get me started on Jason Derullo's RumTum Tugger and Taylor Swift's Bumbalurna (really?) - they were just plain awful. Derullo, especially, turned a fun, energizing driving character into a boring embodiment of all that is wrong with this film (okay...Rebel Wilson was worse, but still....) the only players in this film that kept my attention were stage performers like Robbie Fairchild (Munkustrap) and Francesca Hayward (Victoria) and they were sidelined for the most part by the bigger names and had their dance numbers eliminated and/or truncated.
I wish they would have gone for the campy "so bad, it's good" style of filmmaking - it, at least, would have kept my interest, but the movie as it is, did not. I was happy when the "Jellicle Cat" was selected at the end - I knew this experience would be over soon.
Letter Grade D
2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Dreamgirls (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The rise of Motown records is one of the music industries greatest tales. Berry Gordy Jr. in 1959 established the record label that not only made stars of numerous talents such as Diana Ross and the Supremes and the Jackson 5, but helped African American talents finds success in other markets and mainstream radio.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonceâ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonceâ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphyâs performance is must see film.
In the film Dreamgirls, Director/Screenwriter Bill Condon brings the book and musical of the same name to the big screen with style and energy, and tells an inspired and entertaining story.
Though the names have been changed, it does not take much effort to discover that many parts in the film are indeed based upon actual people, and situations, which only ads to the story and characters, as though seeing a work of fiction, there is some factual basis to what is being shown.
Beyonceâ Knowles stars as Deena Jones, who is the lead singer in a female trio who hope to get noticed at a local talent show. While the group fails to win, they do attract the attention of Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx), a local manager who runs a car dealership during the day.
Curtis takes the girls under his management and soon begins a relationship with Effie, (Jennifer Hudson), as the band begins to get notice. Curtis uses bribes to get the girls played on white radio stations and soon has a hit on his hands and forms his own record label in order for his talent.
While on tour with R&B legend James Thunder Early (Eddie Murphy), the decision is made to make Deena sing lead over Effie which leads to tensions in the band despite their growing success.
What follows is a tale full of love, loss, success, failure, redemption, and laughs as the dynamic tale of the girls and their career is told over the passage of several years.
While much has been made of the singing of Beyonceâ and Jennifer Hudson, Eddie Murphy was clearly the star of the film as he brought a dynamic energy to the film whenever he was on screen. Murphy amazingly blended comedy and music as he performed his own material as well as generated sympathy as the troubled singer, who is trying to hold onto fleeting fame amongst changing times and gives and Oscar worthy performance.
The songs of the film are very well done, though at times, some of them dragged on to long for my taste, and at times hampered the narrative portion of the film.
That being said, Dreamgirls is one of the best musical to hit the screen and if for no reason other than Murphyâs performance is must see film.