Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Prey (2022) in Movies
Aug 12, 2022
Less Is More - And It Works!
In 1987, at the height of the ‘80’s action movie craze with the likes of Stallone, Van Damme, Segal, Norris and Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger came out with what on the surface looked like a throw away macho, sci-fi action flick, PREDATOR. What it turned out to be was one of the all-time classic action films.
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It has taken 35 years for a sequel (in this case, a prequel) to be mentioned in the same stratosphere as the first.
While the other 5 sequels (if you count the Alien vs. Predator cross-over films) delve deeper and harder into the science fiction and macho-action of the first film, the straight-to-streaming prequel PREY (on Hulu and now on Disney+) decided to go in the other direction, it simplified the Predator/Prey dynamic, eschewing deep sci-fi mythology and settled on the “less is more” dictum of storytelling to great affect.
Set in the Midwestern Plains in the 1710’s, PREY follows a group of Comanches as they live their unassuming lifestyle - living off and giving back to the land. A lifestyle that is slowly being encroached upon by foreign entities. At first these “aliens” are terrestrial in nature (the approach of the White Man, in this case, they are in the guise of French Voyageurs), but later, in it takes the form of the extraterrestrial Predator. It’s an interesting juxtaposition of the duo forces outside of what this tribe of Native Americans know - and how they deal with it.
Leading us into the conflict are the main protagonists - the brother/sister combo of Naru (Amber Midthunder, HELL OR HIGHWATER) and her older brother, Taabe (Dakota Beavers, in what is his feature film debut). These 2 - along with their Comanche brethren track and then begin to understand what they are encountering and since they know they are out-gunned, they need to outsmart the Predator.
This could have devolved, quickly, into a gorey, CGI-fest of carnage, but in the careful hands of Director Dan Trachtenberg (10 CLOVERFIELD LANE) and with an interesting screenplay by Trachtenberg and Patrick Aison, this film becomes a thoughtful, intelligence game of wits that is satisfying on both sides.
Midthunder and Beavers are very strong in their roles of the brother and sister Comanches and they are 2 characters that you quickly start rooting for in their battle. These characters are drawn in an interesting, 3-dimensional, way and are a pair that you want to spend these 2 hours of struggle with.
Trachtenberg helps these 2 - and the story - by setting a deliberate pace, as if you the audience are thinking and encountering things along with these 2. There are long bits of thought and talk highlighted by spikes of action that are well choreographed and interesting, but really add to the depths of the characters.
I am as surprised as you are that I encountered an interesting character study in disguise in an action-packed Predator film - but that is just what this is…and very well done to boot.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated Dead Man's Shoes (2006) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
British films don’t really come more powerful as this, Shane Meadows has delivered a film so intense it’ll feel like the quickest most terrifying ninety minutes of your life.
Richard (Considine) has returned home from active service in order to seek vengeance against those who tormented his mentally challenged brother Anthony (Kebbell) some years ago.
Those responsible, Sonny (Stretch) the local drug dealer and his gang, attempt to tackle Richard head on, but Richard is stone faced and not in the least bit afraid. All the while Anthony follows Richard around like a lost puppy, happy just to have his brother with him.
Meadows uses black and white flash backs revealing just what happend to poor Anthony, which puts you at ease that what Richard is doing is more than justified. Nobody likes a bully but everyone loves it when they get their comeuppance.
With the group realising that there efforts are all for nothing it becomes just a waiting game as to when Richard comes for them, and come for them he does. Richard initially makes his presence in the town known, subtly at first and in the beginning he toys with the gang before taking his intentions just that little bit further.
It’s a violent film make no question of that, you almost feel sorry for Sonny and his gang.
One particular scene sees Richard spike the kettle with a concoction of drugs that gives three of the gang the most spaced out cup of tea they’ve ever had. Watching it almost makes you feel like you’re high with them. Considine gives a breathtaking performance, Richard is a cold and calculated killer and he’s not in the least bit afraid. He plans everything meticulously, like a lion stalking its prey.
That said all the cast do an amazing job, and its a brilliantly written script as well, with Meadows delving into each character. The film also has a slight black comedy element to it, while we shouldn’t be laughing in some scenes although it is hard not to, this doesn’t detract from the fact its a brutally disturbing film, and is arguably the best British film I have seen.
Richard (Considine) has returned home from active service in order to seek vengeance against those who tormented his mentally challenged brother Anthony (Kebbell) some years ago.
Those responsible, Sonny (Stretch) the local drug dealer and his gang, attempt to tackle Richard head on, but Richard is stone faced and not in the least bit afraid. All the while Anthony follows Richard around like a lost puppy, happy just to have his brother with him.
Meadows uses black and white flash backs revealing just what happend to poor Anthony, which puts you at ease that what Richard is doing is more than justified. Nobody likes a bully but everyone loves it when they get their comeuppance.
With the group realising that there efforts are all for nothing it becomes just a waiting game as to when Richard comes for them, and come for them he does. Richard initially makes his presence in the town known, subtly at first and in the beginning he toys with the gang before taking his intentions just that little bit further.
It’s a violent film make no question of that, you almost feel sorry for Sonny and his gang.
One particular scene sees Richard spike the kettle with a concoction of drugs that gives three of the gang the most spaced out cup of tea they’ve ever had. Watching it almost makes you feel like you’re high with them. Considine gives a breathtaking performance, Richard is a cold and calculated killer and he’s not in the least bit afraid. He plans everything meticulously, like a lion stalking its prey.
That said all the cast do an amazing job, and its a brilliantly written script as well, with Meadows delving into each character. The film also has a slight black comedy element to it, while we shouldn’t be laughing in some scenes although it is hard not to, this doesn’t detract from the fact its a brutally disturbing film, and is arguably the best British film I have seen.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Game Of Thrones in TV
Jul 1, 2019
Winter has come and gone... and there won't ever be anything like it again!
Contains spoilers, click to show
Game of Thrones. The only show that drove people to brag on social media about the fact they've never seen it every time a new series came out!
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
I watched this from Season 3, quickly binging the first two seasons about a week before it aired. I'm not a huge Fantasy fan, but this show really was something else. Despite the setting, it gave us everything - blood, guts, drama, sex... even comedy. It gave us some of the most vile and hated antagonists to ever grace the screen, and it made heroes out of the unlikeliest of people.
Watching it week-to-week was difficult for a couple of reasons. One, so much is going on (especially in the earlier seasons) that you can forget a lot in a week, and you find yourself questioning everything. Two, it's so bloody good, you didn't want to wait a whole week to get your fix! Obviously, now it's finished, the second issue is no longer relevant - it's available to binge to your heart's content, which you absolutely should do.
I want to address the recent criticism of the eighth and final season. We waited over two years for it, and many people felt it was rushed, too short and too shallow. I would say 75% of people who watched the last season were left disappointed. Myself included.
But a few days after it had finished, I found myself thinking about the series as a whole more and more. I was reading articles online, theories and arguments about how and why the story played out the way it did. I realised I had felt somewhat detached watching Season 8 because it HAD been two years since I watched Season 7. It's as if I'd forgotten what it was like to watch it.
So, having never seen any episode more than once, I went back to the beginning and watched all eight seasons in a little under three weeks...
SO MUCH BETTER the second time around!
For two reasons. Firstly, there was no break in the story at all. Watching it as it aired meant you had a 12-month break every 10 hours, basically. Easy to lose your thread. Easy to forget things. When that doesn't happen, it's much more enjoyable and actually makes a lot more sense. There was so much I'd forgotten over the course of the nine years it was on, I kind of felt like I'd cheated myself, in a way, by not watching Seasons 1-7 before Season 8 aired.
Second, much in the way that Star Wars Episodes 1-3 work better if you've seen 4-6 first, Game of Thrones was actually much more enjoyable having seen the ending, because things make a lot more sense in retrospect.
***This is where it gets spoilery***
It becomes evident early on, even in the first season, that Jon Snow is one to watch. His shocking death at the end of Season 5 caused much confusion and debate. Obviously, his resurrection early in Season 6 put an end to that, and when the secret about his true identity is finally revealed in Season 8, it was a shocking moment, as everything started to fall into place and the true threat became evident.
However...
Having now done Seasons 1-8 back-to-back, the revelation that Jon Snow is, in fact, a Targaryen is far from surprising, given they've been dropping clues about it since back in the first few episodes. Obviously, at the time, these seemingly throwaway comments meant nothing, but now we know, there are numerous conversations throughout the show that border on being spoilers themselves.
Same with Arya Stark and her storyline. Second time around, even from Season 1, it's evident she was destined to slay The Night King. And as with Jon Snow, you never would've picked up on it at the time, but in hindsight it's been obvious for years.
Now, the major criticism about Season 8 was that it felt rushed and that it sacrificed too many characters arcs for the sake of finishing inside of six episodes. Watching it as it aired, I completely agreed. Jon Snow "suddenly" went from a brooding hero to a pointless extra. Daenerys Targaryen "suddenly" went from the freer of slaves and saviour of Westeros to an insane despot who slaughtered half the world because someone took her toys away.
Not true.
It seemed like that after two years of forgetting almost everything that had happened previously, but watching it from start to finish in one go, those things make perfect sense, and aren't actually that sudden. The Mother of Dragons showed clear and obvious signs of becoming The Mad Queen of Ashes very early on in the show. She was always kind and fair and just... but my goodness, did you get it if you pissed her off! Let's not forget she crucified almost 200 slave-owners long after they surrendered to prove a point. And poor Sam Tarly's father and brother! She had a mean streak, and she lived on a knife's edge. At any point since she married Khal Drogo back at the beginning of Season 1, the slightest push and she would snap. Fast forward to Season 8 and, after many years of fighting to fulfil her birthright and take the Iron Throne, she finds out she's not actually the heir to it at all... that's a pretty big push to a woman with a history of losing her shit when things don't go her way. So not much of a surprise at all, really.
And to address the criticism further, I'll analyse this as a writer. I tell stories for a living. When you're writing a novel, you look at it as a triangle, of sorts. It starts off wide and gradually gets to a point. Game of Thrones began very wide, with lots of characters and subplots. But as time goes on, it narrows and becomes more focused on the main threat... the main storylines - the battle against The Night King and the fight for the Iron Throne. Those two things are what nine years of storytelling were working towards, so yes, when you get to the final season and you have to wrap things up, it makes sense that you're going to focus on the big finish - the point of the series.
Not only that, for the first six seasons, the shows writers and creators had their hands held by George R. R. Martin and his source material. But then the TV show caught up with the books, which meant they suddenly had nothing more than a handful of bullet points to work off instead. Not easy to go from one to the other. They can't embellish things too much, because they run the risk of contradicting and undermining future books, which Mr. Martin wouldn't allow them to do. So they had to keep it simple, stick to the point and finish the job they started - nothing more.
Ultimately, no one likes to see their favourite show end. In hindsight, I think a lot of the criticism the final season received was because the audience forgot what came before it, and because they didn't want it to end.
If you're reading this having never watched it before.... first of all, sorry for ruining the story for you (but I did say it contained spoilers, in my defence). But you have the benefit of being able to binge through this, which means you'll get the full, uninterrupted experience, which is well worth the investment of your time to do.
If you HAVE watched the show before, I strongly suggest re-watching it from the beginning, because I enjoyed it far more the second time around.
This is the kind of show that comes along once a generation. The kind of show people talk about daily long after it finished. It redefines TV drama and I can promise you, you'll never see anything like it again.
That said, don't watch it if you're easily offended or grossed out. Or if you like animals. Oh, and don't watch Season 4, Episode 8 whilst you're eating. And don't watch Season 3, Episode 9 if you believe in the afterlife and have your heart set on getting into Heaven. And it's perfectly acceptable to watch Season 6, Episode 9 and feel like that's what you would do if faced with certain death.
Just perfect.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 24, 2021
The Definitive Film Version for the Fans
Fans of the 1965 Frank Herbert Sci-Fi Fantasy Masterpiece DUNE can finally rejoice - the definitive film version of this novel (at least the first 1/2 of the novel) has made it’s way onto the screen.
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lush, dense, rich, well cast and acted with eye-popping visuals that should be seen on the big screen, Directer Denis Villaneuve’s DUNE is everything that a fan of the book (that would include me) has been waiting for in a film version. It IS the “Peter Jackson LORD OF THE RINGS” version of this book - finally!
The question is, how does this film work for casual fans of the book - or for the myriad moviegoers that have never read the novel it is based on.
And, I’m afraid, the answer there is “not as well”. For Dune is a dense novel, filled with mythology that does go somewhat deep in the movie. This makes the pacing of this film problematic - especially at the beginning, for the novice - but is “deep enough” for those that have read the books.
Let’s start with what works - and that is the visuals that Director Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049) and his crew put on the screen. They are incredible. Unfortunately, most casual on-lookers to this film will decide to check out this 2 hour and 35 minute epic at home for free on HBO MAX, and that would be too bad. This film needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible to totally immerse you in this world.
Villeneuve perfectly cast this film from top to bottom starting with Timothy Chalamet as the hero of this book (and series) Paul Atreides. He brings the right balance of cockiness and unease to Paul who grows into something more than the “perfect prince” as the story progresses.
He is joined by some of the finest performers working today. Rebecca Ferguson and Josh Brolin bring their star power to the roles of Paul’s Mother (who is something more than Paul’s mother) and the head of the military (who is something more than the head of the military). Both of these roles needed to be played by a strong force - and both fill this need admirably.
The always good Oscar Isaac is the right choice for the role of Paul’s father, Duke Leto Atreides, who - by story necessity - is underwritten and, therefore, this film/role does not showcase his talents.
However, Jason Mamoa SHINES as Warrior Duncan Idaho. This is one of my favorite characters from the book and Mamoa brings his “A” game to this charismatic warrior/mentor to Paul. It was the largest pleasant surprise of the performances for me.
Alas, the villains of this piece - Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Stellan Skarsgard) and his nephew, Beast Rabban Harkonnen (Dave Bautista) are relegated to background “mustache twirling” villains, they were not able to showcase their talents in this film. But, at least, we did not get the “golden speedo” that Sting wore in the 1984 David Lynch film version.
Also, not being able to showcase their talents is Javier Bardem and Zendaya as members of the Freman (the subjugated native people of the “Dune” planet). They are both in this film, briefly, as their characters rise and shine in the 2nd half of the book - so, hopefully, we’ll get to see more of them, then.
Which is the other part of this film that will turn off the casual viewer - it only covers (by necessity) the first half of the book, so only tells half a story with no real emotional payoff. For me, a fan of the books, I was fine with this as I am eagerly anticipating the 2nd film - but as a viewer who is just gonna “check this one out”, I’m not so sure that the visuals of this film will be enough to satisfy them.
Come for the visuals, stay for the performances and the dense story and prepare for Dune: Part 2.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Apocalypse (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Another case of threequel-itis
“At least we can agree the third one is always the worst” barks a young Jean Grey in X-Men: Apocalypse. And whilst the film stays well away from the poor efforts of Spider-Man 3 and The Last Stand, there’s more truth to that statement here than director Bryan Singer would want you to believe.
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
X-Men: Apocalypse picks up after the events of its brilliant predecessor, Days of Future Past, as mutants and humans continue to live alongside each other, not necessarily in peace – but not in war either.
The film begins with an introduction to our titular villain, played by Oscar Issac, in Cairo as he aims to recruit four followers – the four horsemen of the apocalypse if you will. Soon after, the audience is whisked away to a more familiar sight, Charles Xavier’s school for gifted youngsters.
After the awakening of Oscar Issac’s villain, and his recruitment of Storm, Magneto, Angel and Psylocke, the X-Men must unite to save humans and mutants alike from being destroyed.
The majority of the ‘younger’ cast return in this instalment with some exciting, and some not so exciting additions. Game of Thrones’ Sophie Turner joins the series as Jean Grey, channelling Famke Janssen reasonably well. Kodi Smit-McPhee is fantastic as Nightcrawler and Tye Sheridan finally does away with James Marsden’s whiney Cyclops.
Apocalypse belongs to Evan Peters and Quicksilver. As with Days of Future Past, he brings the screen to life and as with its predecessor, stars in the film’s standout sequence. However, in an effort to improve on what came before it, the writers have tried too hard to make it bigger and better – the finished product lacks finesse with some poorly finished CGI detracting from the overall effect.
Elsewhere, Michael Fassbender is the perfect man to play Magneto but James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier. It’s only once he loses his hair that we start to see the character he should’ve been right from the beginning. Jennifer Lawrence finally gets into her groove as Mystique after failing to make an impact in First Class and Days of Future Past.
The story is a little underdeveloped, especially after the great writing brought to life in Captain America: Civil War. Despite constantly being told about the stakes never being higher, it doesn’t really feel like anything awful is going to happen. This is, in part, not helped by Apocalypse being a little bit of a wet lettuce when it comes to superhero villains.
Unfortunately, the abundance of CGI only hampers the film further. There is far too much green screen and certain scenes feel unbelievable as a result. The finale in particular is incredibly underwhelming and becomes an ugly mix of special effects.
There’s a problem with the pacing too. After spending nearly an hour introducing the audience to the new mutants; Apocalypse takes a scalpel to the ending with, well the results you’d expect. It’s choppily edited and hastily stitched back together
Nevertheless, this is not a bad film. For the most part, it’s exciting, well-acted, nicely choreographed and beautifully shot with exotic locations brilliantly juxtaposed with the lush landscape of Xavier’s school.
Overall, X-Men: Apocalypse falls some way short of the standard set by its predecessor. In yet another case of threequel-itis, the film is hampered by an underdeveloped story, poor pacing and a ridiculous amount of CGI. Bigger isn’t always better, and unfortunately, this is the case here.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/05/20/another-case-of-threequel-itis-x-men-apocalypse-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated American Sniper (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Incredibly Harrowing
There’s something about Clint Eastwood’s varied directing career that puts him among the greats of the craft. Along with Spielberg, Scott and Fincher, Eastwood has created some of cinema’s greatest films – yet he goes about it in a completely different fashion to his peers, he doesn’t shout about it.
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Here, Eastwood directs Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller in his latest offering, American Sniper, but does it stand as one of the better films on his resume?
American Sniper follows the story of Chris Kyle, a decorated marksman in the US military at a time when the war against terror strikes fear into the hearts of practically everyone across the globe.
An Oscar-nominated Bradley Cooper plays the lead role beautifully, in what is the best performance of his career, while Sienna Miller makes a welcome return to the big screen as his loyal wife Taya.
As the film plays out, we see the duo go about their lives – apart and together as they come to terms with raising a family, despite Kyle’s constant deployment to Iraq and the many troubles that brings as he tries to resume normal life.
Eastwood really hits hard with the imagery, never glamorising the war on terror or conflict itself and this is perhaps the strongest part of the picture. Many films in the genre almost feel like military propaganda, but here, the brutality is raw in the emotions of the lead characters and squalid locations.
The surroundings themselves are beautifully shot with Eastwood’s trademark flair for long, sweeping camera angles being used in abundance. Thankfully he lets the stunning locations speak for themselves throughout the majority of the film, not tampering with them despite that becoming a norm recently.
These scenery shots are juxtaposed with the damp, dirty conditions the soldiers must deal with frequently, with sunset-flooded vistas giving way to crumbling buildings and claustrophobic rooms.
However, the very nature of the movie, following Cooper’s character on his various Tours, does get repetitive at times and there are certain moments that feel like you’re watching someone playing a video game like Resident Evil or Call of Duty as one minor set piece leads to a larger one – though the tense final act makes up for this somewhat.
American Sniper also makes you increasingly aware of the human cost that comes with conflict. This is a bleak film, make no mistake and it’s especially harrowing seeing how Taya (Sienna Miller) copes with being away from her husband for long periods of time, especially with the job of raising a family.
Despite a running time of over two hours, Sniper never feels long, a testament to the snappy pacing and wonderful performances Sienna+Miller+Sienna+Miller+Films+American+dQWprK3Evu6lthroughout, and despite a lack of backstory for some of the other characters, Eastwood delves into the lifestyle of Chris and his wife beautifully.
Overall, Eastwood has another memorable film to add to his CV, and whilst it would be insulting to call it ‘fun’, American Sniper is enjoyable to watch in a whole different way. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller are both excellent and when the whole cinema leaves the screen in complete silence, you know that the message has got across.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/01/23/incredibly-harrowing-american-sniper-review/
Never meet your heroes is the succinct tag line of this Amazon original series, dealing with the notion that all superheroes are morally good… but what if they weren’t…?
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
Filmed in Canada, and starring New Zealand actors Karl Urban and American Gothic’s Antony Starr, this violent and very adult take on the costumed hero mythology is enough removed from standard American sensibilities to allow it to explore itself boldly and largely uncensored. It is definitely not a show for kids!
From the opening scenes it is evident that The Boys is not afraid to use gallons of blood and gore, nudity and colourful language to emphasise its point of a world corrupt, corporate and cruel, where the falacy of the powerful being there to protect you is shown up as pure money-spinning political and media manipulation.
We follow Jack Quaid’s naive victim Hughie Cambell, as he comes to realise the true nature of the self-centred and entirely flawed “heroes” that make up The Seven – an elite collection of super-powered “freaks”, led by Starr’s superbly vain and ego-maniachal Homelander; yet ultimately controlled by the Vought corporation and its unethical CEO Madelyn Stillwell, played with nervy relish by Elizabeth Shue.
There is Translucent, who can turn his skin invisible, but has to be naked to do so, and uses it largely to lurk in women’s bathrooms… The Deep, who can speak to sea creatures, but manifests a poisonous macho air, driven by massive insecurity… and A-Train, the world’s fastest man, who is a self-serving junkie with big issues.
Into the mix comes, the newest member of The Seven, Erin Moriaty, as Annie January, aka Starlight. Who may or may not have what it takes to join the ranks of well publicised fame, if she can turn a blind eye to the sinister workings of Vought and fit in.
Meanwhile, Hughie, looking for justice and perhaps revenge, meets Will Butcher (Urban), a man with a shady past, a terrible London accent (hilariously brought to attention whenever possible), and a reason to despise and hunt The Seven to extinction. The narrative progresses through this hunt, and the revelation of many secrets, into a cat and mouse game between the powerful “heroes” and the mere mortals determined to stop them.
Arch humour presides; nothing is handled with any sense of realism, favouring spectacle over believability. The tongue is firmly in cheek throughout, and the fun comes from the inventive ways the “Supes” use and misuse their powers, versus the resourcefulness of the essentially powerless methods employed by The Boys to chase them down and bring them to justice.
There are moments when the idea overshadows the actual script, for sure. Other times when the density of characters becomes confusing and unfocused. Without spoilers, it does all go in some very interesting directions, and by the end of episode 8 and the season finale it reaches a point suggesting a tactic many new shows seem to favour. Namely, to leaves things open enough, and on a cliff edge enough, to lead it anywhere it wants to go in a second series.
I have to admit, I wasn’t always comfortable with the tone of it… but, perhaps, that is the point. I did, however, find it very entertaining, fascinatingly post-modern and allegorical. As with many of the “Supes” it could have the ability to fly… but isn’t quite there yet!
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Menu (2022) in Movies
Nov 24, 2022
Puts the DARK in Dark Comedy
If a Film Comedy is Milk Chocolate and a Dark Comedy is Dark Chocolate, then the new film THE MENU (Directed by Mark Mylod - Game of Thrones) is the SPECIAL INTENSE (90%) Dark Chocolate of films.
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I mean that as a compliment.
Written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, THE MENU tells the tale of an exclusive, isolated restaurant, the 12 clients that head out to the secluded island this restaurant is on and the ego-maniacal, celebrity chef that runs this restaurant - and this dining experience. What starts out as a satire of these types of restaurants, the chefs and the hero-worship of it’s clientele turns into something much, much more sinister.
This is a film in 2 parts - the first part is a satire of the “Foodie” World with the dishes being somewhat absurd - and believable - as the attendees gush over the dishes, trying to interpret what they are being served and why. The 2nd half turns darker - as the real theme of the night emerges - but it is not the horror/slasher film that one is led to believe in the trailer, it is more of a psychological suspense thriller with some gore to accentuate the themes. (But make no mistake, there IS gore).
Ralph Fiennes (Voldemort in the Harry Potter films) is the perfect choice as the central figure in this film, Chef Slowik. He controls the screen by standing still and when he speaks and goes into action he pulls the audience - and his clientele - into his web.
Anya Tayor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is growing into an actress that is extremely interesting to watch on film and she more than holds her own up against Fiennes in their scenes together. She becomes just as much a force as he is.
The supporting characters in this adventure are interesting ranging from the always good John Leguzamo to Judith Light to Nicholas Hoult and Janet McTeer. They all flesh out characters that could have been just 2 dimensional background characters, but in the capable hands of these performers, they become much more.
Special notice needs to be made of Hong Chau (DOWNSIZING) as Chef Slowik’s main assistant. She pretty much holds down the center of the first part of this film (as we build up the entrance of Fiennes’ character) and she pulls it off with an understated strong performance.
Director Mylod treads an interesting line in THE MENU as he starts this film as a satire, moves it to a dark comedy fairly quickly and then moves it to a much darker place while still keeping the satiric and dark comedic tones as the more sinister things are happening. It’s a tightrope walk to be sure, and Mylod pulls it off.
It’s the type of film that will be difficult to find an audience for it is 2 types of films put together as one - and neither will totally satisfy hard-core fans - but for someone who is looking for an intelligent suspense film (with some gore and, again, let me emphasize that there IS gore) than this MENU will satisfy.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 7 in TV
Sep 5, 2017
Inconsistent characters (2 more)
Lazy writing
Huge plot holes
Who Wrote This?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Full disclosure, I wasn't a huge GoT fan to begin with, but this season takes the cake for the amount of nonsense it expected the viewer to accept without question. The show is ahead of the books at this point, so its no longer based on George RR Martin's books and it shows.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.