Search
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Halloween (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 21, 2019)
You probably already know the story of Michael Myers and the horror that took place in Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night. How Michael Myers became one of the biggest slasher icons in horror movie history. Now we get to hear the story told by Rob Zombie, the man who brought us House of 1,000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects. He gives us some insight as to why Michael Myers is the way he is by showing us some of his childhood, the environment he grew up in, and how his family was. After he's institutionalized, we see how his progress continues to deteriorate as Dr. Samuel Loomis tries to do everything he can to save this young boy. Fifteen years go by when Loomis finally throws in the towel and Myers escapes Smith's Grove. Now on his way back to Haddonfield, Myers seeks his sister, Laurie, to finish what he started almost two decades ago.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
There seems to be a huge debate amongst horror fans about whether this film was good or not. The results seemed to be pretty one-sided in favor of the original horror film from 1978, but now it seems the remake has almost just as many fans. I wouldn't say it was a 50/50 ratio, but 60/40 (60% of horror fans either hate the remake or prefer the original, 40% like the remake or prefer it over the original) seems about right these days. I managed to see the work print a few years ago and I wasn't impressed. With the release of Halloween 2 at the end of this month though, I promised myself I would give this film another shot. So that time has finally come and I can honestly say that the film isn't as bad as I remembered.
A few aspects of the film are actually quite good. Tyler Mane is a great Michael Myers. He's almost seven feet tall and is built like a giant. He's a total monster and the destruction and mayhem he causes is believable given his size. The adult version of Michael Myers is spot-on for a re-imagining of the film. Malcolm McDowell also does a good job as Dr. Loomis. He's no Donald Pleasance, but McDowell's take on the character isn't bad. Scout Taylor-Compton is also a worthy mention. She slips into the shoes of a modern day Laurie Strode rather flawlessly. Moving on from the acting though, the film is pretty solid from the time Michael gets his iconic mask through the finale. The way Michael made so many masks while he was in Smith's Grove was an interesting idea and the scene where you see his room fifteen years later with nothing but masks on every wall is one of the best in the film. The cinematography is also something that is often overlooked, which is a shame since it's actually pretty exceptional. It seemed to stand out most during the scenes where Michael was stalking Laurie, especially in the abandoned Myers house at the end. There's a scene right after Michael gets out of Smith's Grove where he goes to a truck stop and winds up getting the jumpsuit we're all familiar with. While there, he runs into Big Joe Grizzly in the bathroom stall and is banging Grizzly's hand, which is holding a knife, against the bathroom stall wall. As he's doing this though, the bathroom stall is just getting demolished but with every smashing blow, the camera violently shakes. The camera just always seemed to have a knack for giving a good perspective of what the character was going through, whether it was Michael or Laurie.
The disappointing part of this is pretty much everything leading up to Michael getting his mask back after his escape is pretty terrible. The dialogue, especially in the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film, is horrendous. Everything that's said between Deborah Myers and Ronnie White is just awful. The white trash upbringing just doesn't seem worthy for a horror icon like Michael Myers. It's just hard to believe that Michael Myers is the way he is because his mom was a stripper and his older sister was a whore. Logic seems to just be thrown by the way side as the film progresses. After Michael escapes from Smith's Grove, he returns to his old house where his mask and knife that he used to kill his family happen to just be lying under the floorboards. So did the police just pick up the bodies without searching the house or what? So he got his jumpsuit by stealing it from a guy taking a dump at a truck stop? Really? Hearing some of the original music return from John Carpenter's version of the film was a bit bittersweet. On one hand, it was great hearing it again. On the other, however, it just didn't seem to fit. Made me miss the original film more than anything. Giving Michael Myers a specific origin was probably Zombie's biggest mistake. The most terrifying thing about Michael Myers was that he was The Shape and had a bit of mystery to him. You knew he was going after Laurie, but other than that you had Loomis' word to fall back on. Michael was the human incarnation of pure evil. That's it. That's all you need. Humanizing the character and introducing us to his childhood only watered down the Michael Myers character.
There's a scene with Michael Myers and Dr. Loomis in Smith's Grove Sanitarium where Michael has made a mask that he's colored completely black. When Loomis asks him why it's black, Michael says that it's his favorite color. Loomis goes into an explanation about the color spectrum. Black is on one end and is the absence of color while white is at the opposite end and is every color. That's actually a great explanation of the differences between the original film and the remake. The original film would be the black segment of the spectrum. Carpenter's version leaves more to the viewer's imagination as the only explanation for Michael Myers is that he is "pure evil." While the remake would be the white segment of the spectrum as it goes into full detail why Michael Myers is the way he is and it shows every little violent and vulgar detail. Some people would say that having a little bit of mystery would be a good thing when it comes to a film like this while others like having everything laid out for them. It all depends on the viewer and which end of the spectrum they prefer. In my opinion though, that's the biggest mistake Rob Zombie made. There's no mystery left with the Michael Myers character. He's no longer The Shape, but is a psychopathic killer because he was raised by a white trash family, liked to torture animals, and whose sister didn't take him trick or treating.
The best thing Zombie can do is distance himself from the original film(s) as much as possible. To do something original with these characters. He looks like he'll do just that when Halloween 2 hits theaters on August 28th. One thing re-watching the remake accomplished was that it made me look forward to the sequel. The trailer looks really good (but to be fair, so did the trailer for the original film) and I was on the fence about it until I saw this again. The only problem I have is that Zombie seems to be telling the same story with the same initial cast with all of his films. House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects, and Halloween (first half of the film) are all way too similar. Zombie needs something new to add to his resume. Will Halloween 2 deliver that? Probably not, but a guy can hope.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Nemesis in Books
Feb 3, 2020
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The Tom Wilde Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335366">Corpus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335377">Nucleus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2664038091">Nemesis</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-13.png"/>;
<b><i>Nemesis is the third book from the Tom Wilde series by Rory Clements. I haven't read the previous two books, and I also haven't read any books from Rory Clements before. I received this book through ReadersFirst, and I will be honest, I was quite reluctant to read it. You already know my opinion on reading sequels before reading the previous books - but I went in blind in this book.</i></b>
The blue cover is simply gorgeous and I knew it was a thriller and a mystery, so I decided this was enough to get me going. If this book review ever captures your attention, I advise you to also go in blind. I think going blind made me enjoy this book even more.The fact that this is a third book in a series doesn't mean anything. The only similarity with the other books is the main character. Almost the same basis as Dan Brown's series and his professor Robert Langdon. The books are entirely standalones.
It is very hard to reveal what the plot is about without spoiling the fun. Tom Wilde is a university professor and one of his very talented students, Marcus, has left to join the International Brigades in Spain. Now, two years after, he is in trouble, and Tom helps him come home.
Meanwhile, numerous things happen, involving World War 2 Politics and propaganda, and in these times, no one knows who to trust. And when Tom Wilde finds himself in great danger, who will help him? And who does he needs to be afraid from? Has maybe helping Marcus been his greatest mistake?
Nemesis is full of suspense from the very first chapter, and the thing I loved the most about it was that the chapters are quite short, and always leave you hanging, hungry to find out more. Every word that Rory Clements types had a meaning and a purpose in this book, and that was the bit I admired the most.
The time setting revolves around the Second World War - a subject I don't often read about. I can't judge about the historical fiction element. However I do know that while I am a person that doesn't enjoy war books, this one struck me in a nice way. The war setting was very well written, and you could even feel the atmosphere around it. The ending was pleasantly surprising and it involved a mystery I could simply not resist.
<b>I will definitely read more books by Rory Clements, as I really enjoy the writing. If you enjoy thrillers and if you are a fan of Dan Brown, you will probably enjoy Nemesis a lot!</b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<b>The Tom Wilde Series</b>
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335366">Corpus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#2 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2780335377">Nucleus</a>; - Not Read Yet
#3 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2664038091">Nemesis</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/New-blog-banner-13.png"/>;
<b><i>Nemesis is the third book from the Tom Wilde series by Rory Clements. I haven't read the previous two books, and I also haven't read any books from Rory Clements before. I received this book through ReadersFirst, and I will be honest, I was quite reluctant to read it. You already know my opinion on reading sequels before reading the previous books - but I went in blind in this book.</i></b>
The blue cover is simply gorgeous and I knew it was a thriller and a mystery, so I decided this was enough to get me going. If this book review ever captures your attention, I advise you to also go in blind. I think going blind made me enjoy this book even more.The fact that this is a third book in a series doesn't mean anything. The only similarity with the other books is the main character. Almost the same basis as Dan Brown's series and his professor Robert Langdon. The books are entirely standalones.
It is very hard to reveal what the plot is about without spoiling the fun. Tom Wilde is a university professor and one of his very talented students, Marcus, has left to join the International Brigades in Spain. Now, two years after, he is in trouble, and Tom helps him come home.
Meanwhile, numerous things happen, involving World War 2 Politics and propaganda, and in these times, no one knows who to trust. And when Tom Wilde finds himself in great danger, who will help him? And who does he needs to be afraid from? Has maybe helping Marcus been his greatest mistake?
Nemesis is full of suspense from the very first chapter, and the thing I loved the most about it was that the chapters are quite short, and always leave you hanging, hungry to find out more. Every word that Rory Clements types had a meaning and a purpose in this book, and that was the bit I admired the most.
The time setting revolves around the Second World War - a subject I don't often read about. I can't judge about the historical fiction element. However I do know that while I am a person that doesn't enjoy war books, this one struck me in a nice way. The war setting was very well written, and you could even feel the atmosphere around it. The ending was pleasantly surprising and it involved a mystery I could simply not resist.
<b>I will definitely read more books by Rory Clements, as I really enjoy the writing. If you enjoy thrillers and if you are a fan of Dan Brown, you will probably enjoy Nemesis a lot!</b>
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Unbreakable (The Legion, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Obviously choosing to dissect Kami Garcia's solo series as my next audiobook victim was a bad idea... a very bad idea...
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Basically, I'm saying I give up on Kami Garcia. No offense, but after my horrid experience with the first couple of books of her <i>Beautiful Creatures</i> series she wrote with Margaret Stohl and then <i>Unbreakable</i>, I'm not sure I want to read another of her books (aside from maybe reading <i>Dangerous Creatures</i>).
<i>Unbreakable</i> sort of has a good idea – emphasis on sort of. Garcia's first debut solo novel follows Kennedy Waters, a girl who doesn't actually believe in ghosts until she finds her mother dead. Shortly after, a ghost makes an attempt to kill her as well, and is stopped by Lukas and Jared Lockhart, two brothers who are part of a centuries-old secret society made up of five members trying to stop a demon released by their ancestors hundreds of years ago. However, Kennedy isn't entirely too sure about whether or not she really belongs with this secret society called the Legion of the Black Dove.
For a person who doesn't watch <i>Supernatural</i> much, it's really weird when I get though, oh... 33 pages, that I realize a book is almost an exact carbon copy of the few episodes I watched.
For instance, there are two brothers in <i>Supernatural</i> and there are two brothers in <i>Unbreakable</i>. Are Sam and his brother identical? No.... not that I'm aware, which is only a small difference between the two books. Brother Pair 1 (<i>Supernatural</i>) and Brother Pair 2 (Unbreakable) apparently hunt demons for a living. At least, that's what I think Pair 1 did – correct me if I'm wrong, avid fans who are bound to be more accurate than me.
Oh, and there's a demon hunting around for a certain person... or a certain group of people. I'm pretty sure there was a demon hunting Brother Pair 1 for quite awhile in the episodes I actually watched (give me a break. I was bored. <i>Supernatural</i> just seemed interesting). Fun fact: possession involved in both TV show and book.
The mere fact that <i>Unbreakable</i> matched the few episodes (I believe they were reruns) I watched didn't bother me too much – it was a potential love triangle between Kennedy, Jared, and Lukas that eventually drove me up the wall. If Garcia isn't careful enough, the tension between Jared and Lukas could eventually set the book on fire – Lukas spends a good part of his time between fighting vengeful spirits and other things rubbing something that Jared did wrong in his face. It gets bad enough that both brothers reach the point of throttling each other's throats and Kennedy going between them and stopping them.
I felt like I was watching a scene from a <i>Twilight</i> (I'm starting to appreciate this series). <i>Lux</i> (because I totally snuck a few peeks in the third one), and pretty much any other book that has a love triangle in which 66% of them nearly start a brawl while the rest of the 33% pretty much yells, "STOP!"
By then, I was definitely not sticking around for five to go down to four just because of a mistake.
I did, however, like the world of Legion. It's certainly not a life I would want, but I definitely enjoyed the basic idea behind the series, Candice Accola's narration of <i>Unbreakable</i>, and the sound effects used in the audiobook.
<a href="https://bookwyrmingthoughts.com/dnf-audiobook-review-unbreakable-by-kami-garcia/"; target="_blank">This review was originally posted on Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Jan 2, 2021
Nolan's PhD Thesis on time
And…on the first day of 2021…the BankofMarquis viewed the best film of 2020.
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Christopher Nolan’s TENET is dense, beautifully shot, confusing, wonderfully acted, well staged, mind bending…and brilliant.
Starring John David Washington (Denzel’s kid - more on him later), TENET is Christopher Nolan’s “Spy Movie”. Much like what he did with the Murder Mystery genre (MEMENTO), the Heist Genre (INCEPTION), the Sci-Fi flick (INTERSTELLAR) and the war picture (DUNKIRK), Nolan takes the Spy film and turns it upside by playing with the one thing we all take for granted - time.
While all of these previous films were Nolan’s “warm up” to this film, TENET is Nolan’s PhD Thesis on playing with time - and the audience’s expectations of how time works. Not only does Nolan play with moving people and action forward and backwards through time, he also plays scenes where you don’t realize that the two folks talking are actually speaking at 2 different places in time.
It is a mind-bender to be sure - and I cannot imagine what the filmmakers, stunt personnel and actors went through in making it - but there is one thing I can guarantee you - you will be confused for (at least) the first part of the film while you retrain your mind to forget all preconceived notions on how time works.
But, if you are able to get your mind around this, Director Nolan has crafted a strong, well-acted, beautiful, exciting and action packed film that, in the end, is very satisfying.
Let’s start with the acting - top to bottom the performances are stellar. John David Washington (BLACK KkKLANSMAN) is “The Protagonist” (that is how he is billed, we never learn his name) and he is a charming and charismatic screen presence to experience this film with. Washington is a former professional football player and he uses this physicality throughout the film. But he is not a “lumbering brute”. He is intelligent and thoughtful as he learns things and adapts his plans as the audience learns them and helps lead us through the often complex plot and concepts throughout.
Elizabeth Debicki builds on her strong work in 2019’s WIDOWS (if you haven’t seen this film, check it out). Her character is much, much more than a “Femme Fatale” and goes mano-a-mano with the men in this film and more than holds her own. Nolan favorite Michael Caine (ALFIE) shows up as does Himesh Patel (INCEPTION), Dimple Kapadia (a major Bollywood star) and Aaron Taylor-Johnson (KICKASS) - all 3 of them bring their “A” game to this film and supports the story very very well.
Kenneth Branagh (TV’s WALLANDER) shows that he still has his fastball - when he is interested - as the film’s main villain. He has some very intense scenes where he just acts the pants off the others in the room (this is a compliment). Sir Kenneth has had a long, storied career (including many, many Shakespearean roles) and he plays the villain as a Shakespeare villain - and is very successful doing so. I’m glad he didn’t waste his “villain turn” on a Marvel or James Bond flick - he saved it for the right film.
Special notice should be made to the work of Robert Pattinson (TWILIGHT) - he has spent his “post-Twilight” years reinventing himself as a performer, mostly working in small, actor-led independent films, and this performance bears the fruits of those efforts. He is charming and mysterious as The Protagonist’s partner and proves that he can, indeed, act.
Like most Nolan films, the Cinematography is mesmerizing and beautiful to behld. Hats off to frequent Nolan Cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema who was able to create a mood and feeling of evil riding just under the surface of beauty - as well as to be able to distinguish those that are going forward in time versus those that are going backwards all while framing shots that are pictures of artistic beauty.
Nolan did not work with frequent musical collaborator Hans Zimmer on this film. He stated he felt that this film needed a “new, more modern” sound and turned to Ludwig Goransson (the Disney+ series THE MANDALORIAN) and he was smart to do so. The music/sound of this film is another character and helps drive the story forward in so many ways.
But make no mistake about it, this film is Nolan’s baby - and it is very “Nolan-y”. The action scenes are smartly put together, the plot and concepts are strong - but very dense - and the performances are strong. All trademarks of my favorite Director working today.
This film is not for everyone. The complexities of the plot are going to be too much for some folks, but if you just “roll with the flow” when your mind can’t quite catch up to the concepts, you will be rewarded with a very rich - very original - film experience. One that, I am sure, will become deeper and richer on the many, many re watches this film deserves.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Destiny (Rogue Angel, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
Have you ever been reading a book when all of a sudden a turn of phrase, an offensive passage, or something altogether different pops up and it all comes to a screeching halt? Whatever it is, it bothered you so much that it colored the rest of your reading and you just couldn't go on, whether or not it was an irrational reaction. In my case it happened with the first paragraph, chapter two (pg. 26):
<blockquote>The rental Avery had arranged turned out to be an old Renault pickup truck. If Annja had been a layman, maybe she'd have mistakenly called it ancient. But she was a trained archaeologist and she knew what <i>ancient</i> meant.</blockquote>
Excuse me? One, I know what the heck ancient means - very old - and I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the Earth's population does too. Two, most people use ancient as an exaggeration, not as a "mistake." I see nothing wrong with that. Three, oh, ho-ho! so being a "trained archaeologist" makes someone that much better and smarter than the layman, eh? It just struck me the wrong way and I got a sense of smug superiority that irked me something fierce.
I had other problems before getting to this point as well, but even though I read about forty pages more, I couldn't get past this one little paragraph. Others problems: I could smell a Mary-Sue from a mile away. Apparently this Lara Croft (whom you couldn't help but think of) wannabe knows EVERYTHING at the ripe old age of - well somewhere in her twenties, it wasn't mentioned in what I read. Puh-lease. Also mentioned was her hour-glass figure, although not in so many words. Are you gagging yet? And she's an expert at some sort of martial arts, where get this, she was taught by a nun. Annja was an orphan or something, so she was raised by them. Something that strikes me as odd, she can spot someone tailing her. I'm not quite sure where or how she could have developed this skill in her line of work, but whatever. So basically, she's perfect at every single thing. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. I don't mind a brainless, action-packed read, but frankly, this wasn't a very well-written one as it was pretty flat and boring, and I couldn't even make it seventy pages.
<blockquote>The rental Avery had arranged turned out to be an old Renault pickup truck. If Annja had been a layman, maybe she'd have mistakenly called it ancient. But she was a trained archaeologist and she knew what <i>ancient</i> meant.</blockquote>
Excuse me? One, I know what the heck ancient means - very old - and I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the Earth's population does too. Two, most people use ancient as an exaggeration, not as a "mistake." I see nothing wrong with that. Three, oh, ho-ho! so being a "trained archaeologist" makes someone that much better and smarter than the layman, eh? It just struck me the wrong way and I got a sense of smug superiority that irked me something fierce.
I had other problems before getting to this point as well, but even though I read about forty pages more, I couldn't get past this one little paragraph. Others problems: I could smell a Mary-Sue from a mile away. Apparently this Lara Croft (whom you couldn't help but think of) wannabe knows EVERYTHING at the ripe old age of - well somewhere in her twenties, it wasn't mentioned in what I read. Puh-lease. Also mentioned was her hour-glass figure, although not in so many words. Are you gagging yet? And she's an expert at some sort of martial arts, where get this, she was taught by a nun. Annja was an orphan or something, so she was raised by them. Something that strikes me as odd, she can spot someone tailing her. I'm not quite sure where or how she could have developed this skill in her line of work, but whatever. So basically, she's perfect at every single thing. Sorry, that doesn't work for me. I don't mind a brainless, action-packed read, but frankly, this wasn't a very well-written one as it was pretty flat and boring, and I couldn't even make it seventy pages.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Arrival (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wow – what a surprise.
Sometimes I can get very irritated by a trailer for giving too much away (case in point, “Room” – which I recut – and more recently “Passengers”). Sometimes I can get very excited by a really good teaser trailer (case in point, “10 Cloverfield Lane”). But most of the time a “ho hum” trailer typically drives the expectation of a “ho hum” film: “Jack Reacher: Never Look Back” being a good recent example. Then there is “Arrival”…
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Because the trailer for “Arrival” belies absolutely nothing about the depth and complexity of the film. At face value, it looks like a dubious “Close Encounters” wannabe, with a threat of movement towards the likes of “Independence Day” and “The 5th Wave”. Actually what you get is a film that approaches the grandeur of “Close Encounters” but interlaces it with the intellectual depth of “Inception”, the mystery of “Intersteller” and a heavy emotional jolt or two of “Up”.
Amy Adams (“Batman vs Superman”) plays Dr Louise Banks, a language teacher at a US university facing a bunch of particularly disengaged students one morning. For good reason since world news is afoot. Twelve alien craft have positioned themselves strategically around the world, hanging a few feet from the ground in just the sort of way that bricks don’t. Banks is approached by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) and offered the job of trying to communicate with the aliens: where did they come from? why are they here? Banks faces the biggest challenge of her academic career in trying to devise a strategy for communication without any foundation of knowledge on what level communication even works at for them. Assisted by Ian Donelly (Jeremy Renner, “Mission Impossible IV/V”, “Avengers”), a theoretical physicist, the pair try to crack the code against a deadline set by the inexorable rise of international tensions – driven by China’s General Chang (Tzi Ma, “Veep”; “24”).
Steven Spielberg made a rare error of judgement by adding scenes in his “Special Edition” of “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” showing everyman power guy Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss) entering the alien spacecraft. Some things are best left to the imagination. Here, a reprise of that mistake seems inevitable, but – perversely – seems to be pulled off with mastery and aplomb. The aliens are well rendered, and the small scale nature of the set (I’m sure I’ve been in similar dingy waiting rooms in UK railway stations!) is cleverly handled by the environmental conditions.
But where the screenplay really kills it is in the emergence of the real power unleashed by the translation work. To say any more would deliver spoilers, which I won’t do. But this is a masterly piece of science-fiction writing. The screenplay was by Eric Heisserer – someone with a limited scriptwriting CV of horror film reboots/sequels such as “Final Destination 5”, “The Thing” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” – so the portents were not good, which just adds to the surprise. If I were to be critical, some of the dialogue at times is a little TOO clever for its own good and smacks of Aaron Sorkin over-exposition: the comment about “They have a word for it in Hungary” for example went right over my head.
Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario”) deftly directs, leaving the pace of the story glacially slow in places to let the audience deduce what is going on at their own speed. This will NOT be to the liking of movie fans who like their films in a wham-bam of CGI, but was very much to my liking. The film in fact has very little exposition, giving you lots to think about after the credits roll: there were elements of the story (such as her book) that still generated debate with my better half on the drive home.
Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner are first rate and an effectively moody score by Jóhann Jóhannsson (“Sicario”; “The Theory of Everything”) round off the other high-point credits for me.
An extraordinary film, this is a must see for sci-fi fans but also for lovers of good cinema and well-crafted stories.
Merissa (12911 KP) rated Alpha's Fake Wife by Maria Warren in Books
Jun 23, 2022
ALPHA'S FAKE WIFE is the first book in a series that really does show potential but, unfortunately for me, I just didn't feel as though it lived up to that potential as it stands right now.
It is a slow-burn Reverse Harem romance with a mystery/romantic suspense element to it as someone is drugging and assaulting females in Drew's pack.
Our main female, Laura, is brought to a party by her not-so-likeable best friend, Brandon, before he abandons her for other women. After he leaves her, she is handed a drink, drinks it, is immediately drugged, and starts to be led away. She is able to free herself but feels ill - which is how she meets Drew. Lance is Drew's half-brother who acts completely out of character when he throws a party for the pack to celebrate the new Luna - even though he is only tolerated by most of them, and actually prefers to stay out of the limelight. Lance meets Laura the same night and mistakes her for one of Drew's usual floozies. We don't meet Xavier until about halfway through (or so it felt) although he is supposed to be Drew's bodyguard! I am told about these four having a connection - or rather, three having a connection to Laura, and her to the three - but I never see or feel it.
There are situations and circumstances left unexplained in here that, although may be explained in future books, could have done with at least something to be going on with. For example, what is with the intense dislike of cherries? There are some fruits I don't like, but hers is crazy. And seriously, if you've got someone going around assaulting women, stop going out by yourself when you've been asked not to (unless it's for a bloody good reason which none of hers were). And how many times are you going to be on the receiving end of a drugged drink and be able to pass it off as a mistake?
There are a couple of Not-So-Big Bads here that didn't come as a surprise at all, but there are clues given to a Big Bad called The Alchemist who I guess will be the overall story arc going forward.
If this book went through a severe editing process, dropped a few thousand unnecessary words, tightened up the story as a whole, made a connection between the characters, and made said characters more relatable, then I would continue with it, but as it stands, I won't be reading this series any further.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
It is a slow-burn Reverse Harem romance with a mystery/romantic suspense element to it as someone is drugging and assaulting females in Drew's pack.
Our main female, Laura, is brought to a party by her not-so-likeable best friend, Brandon, before he abandons her for other women. After he leaves her, she is handed a drink, drinks it, is immediately drugged, and starts to be led away. She is able to free herself but feels ill - which is how she meets Drew. Lance is Drew's half-brother who acts completely out of character when he throws a party for the pack to celebrate the new Luna - even though he is only tolerated by most of them, and actually prefers to stay out of the limelight. Lance meets Laura the same night and mistakes her for one of Drew's usual floozies. We don't meet Xavier until about halfway through (or so it felt) although he is supposed to be Drew's bodyguard! I am told about these four having a connection - or rather, three having a connection to Laura, and her to the three - but I never see or feel it.
There are situations and circumstances left unexplained in here that, although may be explained in future books, could have done with at least something to be going on with. For example, what is with the intense dislike of cherries? There are some fruits I don't like, but hers is crazy. And seriously, if you've got someone going around assaulting women, stop going out by yourself when you've been asked not to (unless it's for a bloody good reason which none of hers were). And how many times are you going to be on the receiving end of a drugged drink and be able to pass it off as a mistake?
There are a couple of Not-So-Big Bads here that didn't come as a surprise at all, but there are clues given to a Big Bad called The Alchemist who I guess will be the overall story arc going forward.
If this book went through a severe editing process, dropped a few thousand unnecessary words, tightened up the story as a whole, made a connection between the characters, and made said characters more relatable, then I would continue with it, but as it stands, I won't be reading this series any further.
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book, and the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Code! Learn how to program - Swift Version
Education and Reference
App
Easily learn how to code in Swift directly on your iPhone or iPad! Includes dozens of fun and fully...
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated News of the World (2020) in Movies
Jan 17, 2021
Strongly Acted and Directed
Pound for pound, Tom Hanks is the best actor of this generation. From his big screen debut in SPLASH to his Oscar Nominated turn in BIG to his back-to-back Oscar wins for PHILADELPHIA and FORREST GUMP to more recent works like SULLY and THE POST, Hanks’ “everyman goodness” quality shines through the screen and makes him a screen presence that cannot be ignored.
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
And in his latest effort, the Paul Greengrass Directed NEWS OF THE WORLD, Hanks uses every molecule of his screen presence to keep the audience’s attention in a slow-paced, moody character study.
Based on the novel by Paulette Jiles, NEWS OF THE WORLD takes place in a post-Civil War Texas where a former Confederate Captain makes a living by going from town to town and reading the news to them. A chance encounter with a twice orphaned young girl alters the lives of both of them.
Writer/Director Paul Greengrass is most known for quick-cut action films like the BOURNE series or the criminally underrated GREEN ROOM, so he would seem - at first glance - as an unusual choice to adapt and direct this character study, but look further at Greengrass’ resume and you will find - in films such as UNITED 93 and CAPTAIN PHILLIPS - an ability to tell a story that is driven more by character than by action.
And this combination of Director and Actor works well for NEWS OF THE WORLD is a languidly paced piece that has a somber mood and look but Greengrass avoids the temptation of lingering on scenes or pictures too long (and there are some wonderful images captured by Greengrass and Cinemotgrapher Darius Wolski) to tell a story of a man who needs to rediscover and remake himself.
And Hanks is more than equal to the task of bringing the pragmatic, introspective Captain Jefferson Kyle Kidd character to life in a way that makes him intriguing and not boring. Hanks ability to show inherent decency in a look or a gesture is the stuff of legends and when he speaks, you listen. Which is good for Hanks is in every scene in this film and his performance needs to strongly capture the audience for this film to work - and he is more than equal to this task - so strong is Hanks in this role that I would not be surprised if there is another Oscar nomination in Tom’s near future.
Newcomer Helena Zegal is “just fine” in the other main role in this film - the young girl that Captain Kidd encounters, Johnna. This young girl is silent and shut down for most of the film and Zegal performs “shut down and silent” well. Also along for brief cameo roles of characters that Captain Kidd encounters on his journey is a bevy of wonderfully cast character actors that include Mare Winnigham, Ray McKinnon, Bill Camp and the always interesting to watch Elizabeth Marvel.
As is often the case in these sorts of films, the music/soundtrack becomes a vital part of the story that unfolds and 8 time Oscar nominated composer James Newton Howard (THE PRINCE OF TIDES) is more than up to the task. The music is another character in this film and helps set the mood along the journey.
But make no mistake, this is Hanks’ film - and he is VERY good in this. Like MIDNIGHT SKY (reviewed last month), this movie will not be for everyone - and many, many folks are going to tell me that they checked this movie out on my recommendation and were bored by it. But…if you click into the mood, motion and energy of what Greengrass is showing, you will be rewarded with an emotionally rich and complex character study.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)