Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019
Don't Try and Make Sense of it and You'll be Just Fine
With the aid of Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), Tim Goodman (Justice Smith) is on a mission to find out what happened to his missing father.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
You can’t have a movie centered around Pokemon and not have a bevy of characters to behold. Detective Pikachu does not disappoint pushing the envelope of creativity with the number of characters involved. Every Pokemon you can think of shows up in some form or fashion. I was just happy seeing Jiggly Puff get a small bit of shine. Outside of Pikachu himself, I thought the mime Pokemon was a riot. Seeing him and Pikachu together was probably one of my favorite scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I was actually pretty impressed with the visuals here. The film takes place over a number of cool settings, including an MMA-style ring with a raging dragon. The colors are vibrant and help bring each Pokemon to life. I appreciate the attention to detail with this movie trying to incorporate as many characters from the game as possible. No corners were cut here as the characters seem to look true to form.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 8
I dare you to watch this movie and not at least be entertained by some of the parts. Maybe the action could have been spaced out better to prevent lagging, but there was enough there to keep my attention. Between that and Pikachu cracking me up every few minutes, I was surprised by how little of an effort it was to watch this movie.
Memorability: 7
There are a few scenes that are done extremely well while others could have been left out. Probably what stands out the most to me in terms of memorability is here is a movie that was most likely supposed to fail. Yet, director Rob Letterman managed to prove over and over again that the project had legs. It’s not a movie that over saturates you with great moments, but there is enough of a framework to keep you happy.
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
If they had gotten this part right, I’m looking at the movie in a whole different light. The story was all over the place. It was way too jumbled, a hot mess. There is an objective, then there’s a side objective with all these cheats along the way. I finally just said, “Screw it, I’ll enjoy it for what it is. Not going to try and make sense of it.”
Resolution: 10
The ending almost made up for the shoddy plot. It’s cute and touching, very fitting considering the craziness Pikachu and Tim went through for the duration of the story. Happy with how things shook out.
Overall: 78
Sometimes it only takes one thing to keep a movie from greatness. In this case Pokemon: Detective Pikachu couldn’t stop tripping over itself with its awkward storyline. I still recommend it for one good watch.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 6
Characters: 10
You can’t have a movie centered around Pokemon and not have a bevy of characters to behold. Detective Pikachu does not disappoint pushing the envelope of creativity with the number of characters involved. Every Pokemon you can think of shows up in some form or fashion. I was just happy seeing Jiggly Puff get a small bit of shine. Outside of Pikachu himself, I thought the mime Pokemon was a riot. Seeing him and Pikachu together was probably one of my favorite scenes.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
I was actually pretty impressed with the visuals here. The film takes place over a number of cool settings, including an MMA-style ring with a raging dragon. The colors are vibrant and help bring each Pokemon to life. I appreciate the attention to detail with this movie trying to incorporate as many characters from the game as possible. No corners were cut here as the characters seem to look true to form.
Conflict: 9
Entertainment Value: 8
I dare you to watch this movie and not at least be entertained by some of the parts. Maybe the action could have been spaced out better to prevent lagging, but there was enough there to keep my attention. Between that and Pikachu cracking me up every few minutes, I was surprised by how little of an effort it was to watch this movie.
Memorability: 7
There are a few scenes that are done extremely well while others could have been left out. Probably what stands out the most to me in terms of memorability is here is a movie that was most likely supposed to fail. Yet, director Rob Letterman managed to prove over and over again that the project had legs. It’s not a movie that over saturates you with great moments, but there is enough of a framework to keep you happy.
Pace: 8
Plot: 1
If they had gotten this part right, I’m looking at the movie in a whole different light. The story was all over the place. It was way too jumbled, a hot mess. There is an objective, then there’s a side objective with all these cheats along the way. I finally just said, “Screw it, I’ll enjoy it for what it is. Not going to try and make sense of it.”
Resolution: 10
The ending almost made up for the shoddy plot. It’s cute and touching, very fitting considering the craziness Pikachu and Tim went through for the duration of the story. Happy with how things shook out.
Overall: 78
Sometimes it only takes one thing to keep a movie from greatness. In this case Pokemon: Detective Pikachu couldn’t stop tripping over itself with its awkward storyline. I still recommend it for one good watch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 5, 2021
Unique
Writer/Director Edgar Wright has developed into one of the more unique film makers working today with a stylistic look, feel and sound to all of his films. Long known as the Director of the Simon Pegg/Nick Frost comedies (SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and AT WORLD’S EDGE), Wright started coming into his own with the under-rated SCOTT PILGRIM vs. THE WORLD and the marvelous BABY DRIVER and with his latest film, the trippy thriller LAST NIGHT IN SOHO, Wright has graduated - in my eyes - as a Director who’s work is “must watch” whenever they come out.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is unique, stylized, stunning - both visually and aurally - mind-bending, tense and satisfying. A truly unique film by a unique filmmaker.
To tell the tale of LAST NIGHT IN SOHO is to spoil it. The less you know about it, the better. But, as the trailers suggest, a modern young fashion student is in London and is transported into the “swinging ‘60’s London and ends up living, vicariously, the life of another. That’s all I’ll say. I would recommend just going in and let the story wash all over you - both through the eyes and through the ears - which is why I would recommend this film been seen in a theater (or, at the very least, on a set-up with a killer sound system).
Because of the highly stylized and “go with it” feel of this film, the performances have a tendency to move to the background, but they are very well done. Thomasin McKenzie (JOJO RABBIT) is a strong choice as the Fashion Student who has this “adventure” (to say more is to spoil), she brings the right amount of reality and “unreality” to her character. Anya Taylor-Joy (THE QUEEN’S GAMBIT) is superb as Sandie, the object of the “adventure”. She isn’t asked to do much more than be mysterious - and she does it well.
Wright, wisely, fills the rest of the film with strong supporting players - Matt Smith (DR. WHO), the great Terence Stamp (THE LIMEY) and, most importantly, Dame Diana Rigg (Emma Peel in THE AVENGERS in the 1960’s, in her final film role before her death in September 2020), all bring their “A” game to the festivities and fill their roles well.
It’s not a perfect film, the beginning drags on a bit before things start to get good (and weird) and their is a superfluous subplot involving some “Mean Girls” at the Fashion School that our heroine attends in today’s world - a subplot that never really goes anywhere. The ending, also, does go “over the top”, but by that time, I was swept up in the style of this film and forgave it it’s flaws.
I ended up having LAST NIGHT IN SOHO-type dreams, and indication that this film struck a chord with me and is going to stay with me for awhile - and is probably worth a re-watch (it certainly is one of those types of films that can be different upon a re-watch).
Well worth the effort to check it out on the Big Screen - certainly the visuals and sound will make it worthwhile.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Mobitee Golf GPS Rangefinder Scorecard Flyover
Sports and Navigation
App
Over 200,000 downloads! ...
Kids Learning - My First Numbers Counting Game
Education and Games
App
Grasshopper Apps = Top Educational iPad Apps for Kids :-) Why Grasshopper Apps? We believe that...
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime in TV
Jul 7, 2020
That Time I Got Reincarnated As A Slime is a 2018 anime series animated by 8-Bit with the light novel written by Fuse. It was directed by Yasuhito Kikuchi, with Atsushi Nakayama as assistant director. Kazuyuki Fudeyasu handled music composition with Ryouma Ebata designing the characters and Takahiro Kishida providing monster designs. The series was Simulcast by both Crunchyroll and Funimation.
Minami Satoru was a 37-year old manga loving, corporate worker until one day his life ended in tragedy. While meeting up with a friend for dinner, he sees a man with a knife run up and shoves his friend out of the way, but is fatally injured and dies. When Satoru regains consciousness, he discovers he has been reborn as a "slime", a famously weak character from video games and now in a different world. Blind, deaf, and weak, things are pretty grim initially but he finds he has some new abilities which he uses to gain both friends and enemies in a whole new world.
This anime is pretty cool. It's an "isekai" anime which means it's set in a different world; and is also a genre of anime that I enjoy. It has a fantasy element too and a variety of different races of characters. This series has quite a bit of "fan service" so it might not be for everyone. Also the main character is pretty "op" (over-powered), so you might not find it as compelling as other anime. I felt that they were able to make the conflict that arises work very well with the storyline and with the introduction of new characters. One thing that I didn't think I was going to like, was how he has abilities similar to a character in a video game and learns more over the series. This wound up being really cool in the way they show him use it and develop his abilities as he uses them against enemies. I really liked the animation and designs of the characters and monsters too.
Minami Satoru was a 37-year old manga loving, corporate worker until one day his life ended in tragedy. While meeting up with a friend for dinner, he sees a man with a knife run up and shoves his friend out of the way, but is fatally injured and dies. When Satoru regains consciousness, he discovers he has been reborn as a "slime", a famously weak character from video games and now in a different world. Blind, deaf, and weak, things are pretty grim initially but he finds he has some new abilities which he uses to gain both friends and enemies in a whole new world.
This anime is pretty cool. It's an "isekai" anime which means it's set in a different world; and is also a genre of anime that I enjoy. It has a fantasy element too and a variety of different races of characters. This series has quite a bit of "fan service" so it might not be for everyone. Also the main character is pretty "op" (over-powered), so you might not find it as compelling as other anime. I felt that they were able to make the conflict that arises work very well with the storyline and with the introduction of new characters. One thing that I didn't think I was going to like, was how he has abilities similar to a character in a video game and learns more over the series. This wound up being really cool in the way they show him use it and develop his abilities as he uses them against enemies. I really liked the animation and designs of the characters and monsters too.
My Masked Shadow (Beautiful Stalkers #3)
10.0
Rate It
Book
I'm in her firewall. She's under my skin. I don’t need to creep down dark alleys to stalk her. ...
Dark Contemporary Stalker Romance Erotica
Sky Force 2014
Games and Entertainment
App
The mobile blaster legend is back to celebrate its 10-year anniversary in super-destructive style....
Ultimate Fox Simulator
Games and Entertainment
App
Dash into a brand new adventure as a wild Fox! For the first time ever, choose from THREE PLAYABLE...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated FIRESTARTER (2022) in Movies
May 21, 2022
Commits the Biggest Film Crime - It's Boring
Sometimes, I watch a movie, so you don’t have to.
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
I watched the remake of the Stephen King novel FIRESTARTER, so you don’t have to.
The current “leader in the clubhouse” for the worst film of 2022, FIRESTARTER is based on the very good Stephen King novel that was published in 1980 and was made into a pretty cheesy, pretty ‘80s flick in 1984 that made Drew Barrymore (fresh off her work in ET) a bonafide movie star.
No such luck in this one.
Produced by Blum House, Directed by Keith Thomas (THE VIGIL) and adapted from King’s novel by Scott Teems (HALLOWEEN KILLS), this version of FIRESTARTER was dead on arrival, with a weak script, mediocre directing and less than stellar visual effects, consequently making a film that is the worst sort of film…boring. It doesn’t even have the ambition to be “so bad, it’s good”, it is just plodding and mediocre throughout.
But, at 1 hour 34 minutes, it is mercifully short, so it does have that going for it.
What it also has going for it is a “game” Zach Efron as “Firestarter’s Father” and he elevates the scenes he is in to something that comes close to watchable. And when Sydney Lemmon is along as “Firestarter’s Mom” the screen comes the closest to interesting. But the rest…”meh”.
Ryan Kiera Armstrong plays “Firestarter”, Charlie McGee - the young lady who can start fires with her telepathic powers - and she is “just fine”, but she does not have the star power or “it” factor that Barrymore brought to the proceedings previously. She is just not a compelling enough presence on screen to save this turkey. I don’t blame her, I blame the weak Direction by Thomas and the limp script by Teems.
The only other character/performance that sparks some interest in this film is Michael Grayeyes (TOGO) who plays a Native American tracker with his own telekinetic powers who is put on the trail of Charlie by the mysterious Institute (a shadowy Gov’t agency that chases after various “special” people - mostly kids - in quite a few Stephen King novels). Inexplicably, this role was played by an aging, pony-tailed George C. Scott (obviously chasing a paycheck) in the 1984 film. Grayeyes succeeds more.
But these glimmers of competence only aggravates more when the film bogs back down in cardboard villains (what has happened to your career, Gloria Ruben) and exposition spouting scientists (what a waste of Kurtwood Smith) and less than spectacular action sequences that, mostly, consist of Armstrong screaming while a wind machine blows her hair back while sub-par CGI flames engulf the screen.
And…adding insult to injury…the "guy in the asbestos suit” (a mainstay of any film involving fire) does not even get a day of stunt pay! It’s like going to see a Tom Cruise Mission Impossible film and Cruise doesn’t do some sort of crazy stunt!
After the success of IT, PART ONE in 2017, there was a renaissance, of sorts, of adaptations of Stephen King works and even though PET SEMATARY (2019) was pretty decent and IT, CHAPTER TWO and DOCTOR SLEEP (2019) were okay, THE DARK TOWER, the TV remake of THE STAND, LISEY’S STORY and now FIRESTARTER were all terrible, so maybe we’ve seen the end of this phase of King adaptations (I doubt it, but one can hope).
Save yourself and hour and a half of your life and skip this Firestarter. Instead, revisit the 1984 version - it plays like an Oscar-winner compared to this turkey. Or, better yet, read the original Stephen King work - it is the best of all of these.
Letter Grade: C- (and I’m being generous)
3 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).