Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A Surprisingly Disappointing Heist Film
Upon seeing King of Thieves listed as a Limitless preview screening, I immediately snapped up the opportunity to see it because I had been looking forward to it since the first trailer I saw. With a well-known cast, an iconic real life heist story, and a classic ‘British crime’ aura, I was anticipating something great. I really can’t understand how they managed to mess that combo up, but here we are. Out of all the reviews I’ve ever written, this one is probably the hardest because of how disappointed I feel. As a film fan it’s difficult when you get yourself hyped up, only to be let down by the finished result.
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
For me, King of Thieves started off promising then rapidly declined into a bit of a mess. If it weren’t for a few redeeming features, I would’ve rated it even lower. One of the positives to come out of this film is the performances; it’s no surprise to any of you that these are actors at the top of their game, and I believe they worked as hard as they could with what they had. I don’t have a problem with any of the actors, my main problem lies with how utterly awful and cringe-worthy the screenplay was. They had an opportunity to work with some brilliant talent, but even they couldn’t save this film.
I appreciate the script was trying to encapsulate the ‘tough, working class London’ stereotype through these characters, but for me there was too much swearing and casual racism/homophobia than actual exposition. We learn barely anything about these characters, with the exception of Michael Caine’s, so all we see for almost two hours is a bunch of old men arguing and swearing constantly. We aren’t encouraged to connect or sympathise with any of them, none of them are particularly three dimensional, so you find yourself hating everyone on screen. Even a little emotional moment here and there would’ve been nice. With no chemistry between characters, the heist becomes very dull indeed.
If the weak script wasn’t bad enough, I wasn’t impressed with the cinematography either. The film seems confused throughout, not really sure what visual styles it wants to settle on so it jumps about here and there. As a result, this is very jarring and I found it hard to watch. The camera is all over the place, it doesn’t seem to have any fixed techniques, and it becomes a nuisance more than anything. That being said, the heist scenes themselves were very well-shot which is even more frustrating for me. How can you shoot certain things brilliantly, then mess up others? It doesn’t make any sense. If anything, it’s proven that the people involved did have the potential to create something great, but somehow managed to throw it all away.
King of Thieves feels a lot like a straight-to-DVD crime film that you might watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon when you’re a bit tired or hungover. It’s certainly not the kind of cinematic, high-quality film I would expect to see on the big screen. It’s mildly entertaining and delivered a few laughs, but ultimately it’s forgettable. My advice for this film would be: don’t let them rob you of a ticket, catch it on TV instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/09/08/king-of-thieves-a-surprisingly-disappointing-heist-film/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Meg (2018) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
The long journey to bring “The Meg” to the big screen is finally over as Author Steve Alten’s classic book series has arrived.
The film stars Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor, an expert in underwater rescues who has to makes a very difficult choice when a rescue goes bad after suffering a very unexpected encounter mid-rescue.
Five years later Jonas is out of the rescue game as he has been labeled as unreliable and prone to PTSD so he drinks his time away in Thailand working on local boats.
200 miles off the coasts of China is an advanced research lab which is the pet project of a Billionaire named Morris (Rainn Wilson), who arrives in time to witness an attempt by the crew to go deeper than ever thought possible by going through a layer that was previously believed to be the ocean floor. The experiment works and the crew is amazed by their new discoveries until something violently attacks their ship leaving them stranded on the bottom of the ocean.
With a limited amount of air and time ticking away, Jonas is recruited despite his numerous refusals as not only is one of the stranded people his ex; but the last transmission sent by the sub mentions how Jonas had been right all along when he had years early claimed they were not alone during the rescue attempt gone bad.
Jonas is teamed with a spirited member of the team named Suyin (Bingbing Li), who has taken a sub down ahead of Jonas as she was not willing to wait for outside help to arrive. She locates her comrades and is attacked by a massive shark long thought extinct.
The harrowing rescue goes off but again Jonas is faced with a no-win situation and is blamed by a former colleague for the issues.
While Morris is eager to exploit the new find for the huge financial opportunity it presents, their plans change when the creature emerges from its contained area and threatens a level of carnage on the seas the likes of which society and the ecosystem are very unprepared for.
What follows is a frantic and often intense series of engagements as Jonas and the crew must battle the massive and deadly creature and find a way to survive.
The film has some very solid effects and the intensity at times had people in the press screening partially covering their eyes during some of the more harrowing moments.
The cast is solid and work well with one another as the film does what it can to keep some of the characters from being little more than generic victims for the Meg.
The movie does differ from the book in terms of being set off China versus California but this was largely due to the joint-production with Chinese owned Gravity Pictures. The film is also much less gory than the book as Director Jon Turteltaub was mandated to deliver a PG-13 film by the studio to improve the odds of returning on the $150.00 million invested in the film.
The dialogue is also a bit stilted and formulaic in parts but action films are not known for their complex plots or advanced dialogue and I attributed this largely to the challenges of a blended cast; many of whom do not speak English as their primary language.
Despite a delay from its planned 2017 release date, “The Meg” is a solid and fun action-thriller that gives audiences one of the best excuses not to go swimming since “Jaws”. While there have been numerous Shark films over the years, “The Meg” deftly weaves good sets and production values with a top-notch cast and lavish visuals to bring the film to life.
With several other books in the series already available, I hope we see the next film surface in a few years as I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2018/08/08/the-meg/
The film stars Jason Statham as Jonas Taylor, an expert in underwater rescues who has to makes a very difficult choice when a rescue goes bad after suffering a very unexpected encounter mid-rescue.
Five years later Jonas is out of the rescue game as he has been labeled as unreliable and prone to PTSD so he drinks his time away in Thailand working on local boats.
200 miles off the coasts of China is an advanced research lab which is the pet project of a Billionaire named Morris (Rainn Wilson), who arrives in time to witness an attempt by the crew to go deeper than ever thought possible by going through a layer that was previously believed to be the ocean floor. The experiment works and the crew is amazed by their new discoveries until something violently attacks their ship leaving them stranded on the bottom of the ocean.
With a limited amount of air and time ticking away, Jonas is recruited despite his numerous refusals as not only is one of the stranded people his ex; but the last transmission sent by the sub mentions how Jonas had been right all along when he had years early claimed they were not alone during the rescue attempt gone bad.
Jonas is teamed with a spirited member of the team named Suyin (Bingbing Li), who has taken a sub down ahead of Jonas as she was not willing to wait for outside help to arrive. She locates her comrades and is attacked by a massive shark long thought extinct.
The harrowing rescue goes off but again Jonas is faced with a no-win situation and is blamed by a former colleague for the issues.
While Morris is eager to exploit the new find for the huge financial opportunity it presents, their plans change when the creature emerges from its contained area and threatens a level of carnage on the seas the likes of which society and the ecosystem are very unprepared for.
What follows is a frantic and often intense series of engagements as Jonas and the crew must battle the massive and deadly creature and find a way to survive.
The film has some very solid effects and the intensity at times had people in the press screening partially covering their eyes during some of the more harrowing moments.
The cast is solid and work well with one another as the film does what it can to keep some of the characters from being little more than generic victims for the Meg.
The movie does differ from the book in terms of being set off China versus California but this was largely due to the joint-production with Chinese owned Gravity Pictures. The film is also much less gory than the book as Director Jon Turteltaub was mandated to deliver a PG-13 film by the studio to improve the odds of returning on the $150.00 million invested in the film.
The dialogue is also a bit stilted and formulaic in parts but action films are not known for their complex plots or advanced dialogue and I attributed this largely to the challenges of a blended cast; many of whom do not speak English as their primary language.
Despite a delay from its planned 2017 release date, “The Meg” is a solid and fun action-thriller that gives audiences one of the best excuses not to go swimming since “Jaws”. While there have been numerous Shark films over the years, “The Meg” deftly weaves good sets and production values with a top-notch cast and lavish visuals to bring the film to life.
With several other books in the series already available, I hope we see the next film surface in a few years as I cannot wait to see what comes next.
http://sknr.net/2018/08/08/the-meg/
Lyndsey Gollogly (2893 KP) rated Hanks Radio ( Haunted Collection book 4) in Books
Apr 2, 2022
58 of 230
Kindle
Hanks Radio ( Haunted Collection 4)
By Ron Ripley
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
A man's seductive voice emanates from an antique radio, luring women into his murderous embrace....
It's business as usual for Stefan Korzh as he continues to send haunted antiques onto unsuspecting buyers. Despite going into hiding, his desire to punish the universe for his own misfortune remains unchecked.
Victor Daniels, now more than ever, is focused on grabbing Korzh by the neck and making him feel the full extent of his pain and suffering. But plans change when a suave ghost from the 1940s leaves a trail of dead bodies in his wake. Hank, a sly and charming specter, uses a mahogany-colored radio to reach his victims...lonely, elderly women in nursing homes who find him hard to resist.
Meanwhile, Tom Crane is slowly adjusting to the life of a home-schooled student, spending his days immersed in books from the local library. But brewing underneath his scholarly demeanor is his insatiable thirst for revenge. With Victor occupied, Tom embarks on a dangerous mission to confront the man behind his misery.
The lives of Stefan, Victor, and Tom become more and more intertwined as they continue to play the blood-riddled sport. When old friends - and enemies - reveal themselves, they discover that anything is possible in a game filled with ghosts and vengeance.
Even the hunter can become the hunted....
I really enjoy these books and the character development. We pick up with Victor And Tom in this one and how they are dealing with Jeremy’s death and there continued search for Korzh. They get split up and things go a little haywire. These are so good and they involve a different vengeful spirit each time. This on also brought back the doll Anne that thing really gives me the bloody creeps. Recommended if you enjoy a good ghost story.
Kindle
Hanks Radio ( Haunted Collection 4)
By Ron Ripley
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
A man's seductive voice emanates from an antique radio, luring women into his murderous embrace....
It's business as usual for Stefan Korzh as he continues to send haunted antiques onto unsuspecting buyers. Despite going into hiding, his desire to punish the universe for his own misfortune remains unchecked.
Victor Daniels, now more than ever, is focused on grabbing Korzh by the neck and making him feel the full extent of his pain and suffering. But plans change when a suave ghost from the 1940s leaves a trail of dead bodies in his wake. Hank, a sly and charming specter, uses a mahogany-colored radio to reach his victims...lonely, elderly women in nursing homes who find him hard to resist.
Meanwhile, Tom Crane is slowly adjusting to the life of a home-schooled student, spending his days immersed in books from the local library. But brewing underneath his scholarly demeanor is his insatiable thirst for revenge. With Victor occupied, Tom embarks on a dangerous mission to confront the man behind his misery.
The lives of Stefan, Victor, and Tom become more and more intertwined as they continue to play the blood-riddled sport. When old friends - and enemies - reveal themselves, they discover that anything is possible in a game filled with ghosts and vengeance.
Even the hunter can become the hunted....
I really enjoy these books and the character development. We pick up with Victor And Tom in this one and how they are dealing with Jeremy’s death and there continued search for Korzh. They get split up and things go a little haywire. These are so good and they involve a different vengeful spirit each time. This on also brought back the doll Anne that thing really gives me the bloody creeps. Recommended if you enjoy a good ghost story.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Life for Peter Parker, (Andrew Garfield), has become interesting to say the least. He is juggling the delicate and complex balance of being Spider-man as well as a high school senior and boyfriend to Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone).
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
His enthusiasm for his wall crawling alter ego is evident from the start as he still is as fast with a quip as he is with his webs and fists when taking down the bad guys of New York.
A chance encounter with an ultra nerdy yet brilliant Oscorp employee named Max (Jaime Foxx), puts a series of events into motion that will put the city and Spider-man on a collision with a severe danger.
When a freak accident transforms Max into a being capable of becoming and discharging pure electricity, the passive aggressive Max has an outlet for his pent up anger and hero worship and sets to make all those who ignored him pay.
At the same time, internal politics have left Oscorp in the hands of young Harry who learns he has limited time to solidify his position and legacy.
All of this would be enough for anyone to deal with but Peter is conflicted by his love for Gwen and his promise to her late father to stay away from her for her own safety.
Peter also has to content with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and unlocking the mystery of his parents who left him with his Aunt and Uncle years earlier never to return.
If this sounds a bit heady for a comic book based movie then you will not be surprised with the first ¾ of the film. It does contain some great 3D moments of Spider-man slinging his way around the city and some good moments of action but mostly the audience gets character introductions and plot expositions.
When it does get to the action, it does so in a very sleek and stylish way but one that is so obviously CGI created that it plays more like a video game.
For me the liberties taking with the characters and the history of the series were a bit much at first as what they came up with for Electro is not even close to the way he is portrayed in the comics.
Thankfully the final act of the film delivers and sets up future films in grand style even though the trailers tease content that is barely in the film and would have made for a great addition to the film.
Garfield and Stone have great chemistry with one another, and Foxx does his best despite in my opinion being very miscast for the role.
Director Marc Webb is clearly a fan of the source material and I am eager to see what he comes up with for future installments.
As it stands, “The Amazing Spider-man 2”, is an enjoyable summer film but not as good as the film that preceded it and could have been so much more.
http://sknr.net/2014/05/02/amazing-spider-man-2/
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Gerald's Game (2017) in Movies
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
Top Notch Performances. (1 more)
Effective Scares.
Hard To Watch, Yet Impossible To Turn Away
Contains spoilers, click to show
After being underwhelmed by the major blockbuster release of IT, I didn’t have much hope for this small Netflix movie with a limited cast, a low budget and being an adaption of what is regarded as one of Stephen King’s lesser works. I am happy to report that I was pleasantly surprised when I sat down to watch this one, in fact I’d go as far as to say it blew me away.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
This is a movie that lives and dies on the performances of the actors involved. For those of you not familiar with the story’s premise, it involves a married couple driving out to a holiday cottage in the woods for a dirty weekend. The couple is played by Carla Gugino, (Jessie,) and Bruce Greenwood, (Gerald,) who both totally nail their respective roles in the movie. Once they get to the cottage and the door is conveniently left ajar, Gerald handcuffs Jessie to the bed and goes to the bathroom to pop a Viagra. Once he comes back and explains how he has made sure the gardeners and the cleaners won’t disturb them for a few days, he takes a heart attack and collapses onto the floor and dies.
From this point on, Carla Gugino spends the vast majority of the movie handcuffed to the bed and she gives an absolutely stellar performance, possibly the best of her career. She goes though a vast array of emotions in convincing, believable form and shows everything, from despair, to sadness, to anger, to fear, to resilience. I don’t think anyone has ever been Oscar nominated for a straight-to-Netflix movie, but if there is one performance that deserves to be, it is this one.
If you haven’t seen the movie yet, please don’t read on past this point as I am going to have to delve into spoilers in order to discuss the other aspects of the movie that I enjoyed. I thought the way that Gerald appeared to Jessie as a sort of devil on her shoulder was really effective and Greenwood delivered the required level of intense cruelty perfectly. Then the fact that Jessie appeared to herself as a sort of angel on the shoulder to oppose Gerald’s negative thoughts, meant that Gugino was required to deliver a dual character performance, on top of the already challenging role of being chained to the bed.
Flashback sequences in movies can go either way for me. They usually either tend to detract from the story at hand and become an unnecessary tangent, or they compliment what is going on and add to the movie overall. Thankfully in this movie, it is the latter. The flashback scenes are uncomfortable and hard to watch, but they do add context to what is going on in the character’s mind and make for a more interesting dissection of the effect that child abuse can have on a person in later life and how psychologically, even as adults people are still affected by the dreadful things that occurred in their past.
I also thought that this film was extremely effective in terms of its fear factor. As opposed to IT, which was scary at the start, but became repetitive and managed to desensitise its audience for what to expect by the halfway mark, Gerald’s game retains an unpredictable level of uneasiness throughout.
As far as the viewer knows during the first half of the movie, the main conflict facing the protagonist is starvation and the dog that is gnawing on Gerald’s dead body, but then things take a much more sinister turn. In what is possibly the creepiest scene I have seen in a movie this year, Jessie wakes up during the night after passing out for a few hours and she looks into the corner of the room, squinting her eyes. The camera follows where she is looking and the general shape of something can be made out. Then the shape begins to move forwards into the moonlight and is revealed to be a huge, deformed man holding a trinket box. This was so unexpected and freaky, and I loved it. I thought it was so effective in the context of the movie and was executed perfectly to be as disturbing as possible. It is also a relatable scare, as we have all experienced that moment; glancing at the corner of the room, something catches our eye and looks off in the darkness, but you just brush it off and fall back asleep. Jessie’s worst fears are confirmed here though, as she really did see something in the corner of the room and she is helpless to get away from it.
It also throws a twist into a story that has so far been based in what could be a real situation. You start to wonder, is Jessie experiencing something supernatural, or is she just hallucinating due to lack of food and water? Then the Gerald hallucination asks her if ‘The Moonlight Man,’ that she saw isn’t real, then why did the dog run away when he was in the room? Just like Jessie, the audience starts to wonder if he could be real, perhaps he is death and he has come to take Jessie to hell. All of these questions add to the already intense and disturbing tone of the movie and I thought it worked perfectly.
Eventually the movie wraps up with Jessie having an epiphany that if she smashes the glass of water and cuts her wrist, the blood can help her slip her hand out of the cuffs. What follows is a gory, brutal, difficult to watch de-gloving scene that will have you wincing and watching through your fingers. Then in true Stephen King fashion, the movie goes on to reveal another twist. It is revealed that ‘The Moonlight Man,’ really was in the room with Jessie. He was a serial killer that collected various body parts form dead people and he was taking parts from Gerald’s body while Jessie was chained to the bed. I can see why this ending could be polarizing for some, but I loved it and I thought it added an extra layer of craziness to the already insane sequence of events that we just witnessed.
Overall, Gerald’s Game is fantastic. A truly unsettling, chilling Stephen King adaption that showcases fantastic performances from its cast, makes the most of its minimal setting and managed to creep me out way more than any other horror movie I have seen this year.
Top Football Manager
Games and Sports
6.0
Rate It
App
Coach a club of soccer stars who dream to be top of the league! Do you dream of coaching a team of...
If you’re happy & you know it - Full Version
Education and Games
App
~~~ Full Interactive Song + 9 Amazing Educational Games Inside ~~~ ~~~ Top HD graphics and superb...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2020
"Funner" than I expected
BLOODSHOT was one of those movies that I was going to "get around to see, sometime" before it left the movie theaters, little did I know that I would leave the movie theaters before Bloodshot did. So, when I ran across it On-Demand at home, I figured I would check it out - probably to let it run in the background as I multi-tasked.
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...a funny thing happened while multi-tasking while watching this film. I found myself NOT multi-tasking, but rather, I stopped to focus on the film, for I was being entertained by the events unfolding before me on my screen.
Based on the Valiant comic of the same name, BLOODSHOT tells the tale of Ray Garrison a slain soldier who is brought back to life with nano-technology - technology that allows him to be used as a tool by Dr. Emil Harting.
Vin Diesel is the perfect blunt instrument to play Bloodshot. He reeks of testosterone and macho-ness but is a winning personality on the screen with enough charm and charisma to draw the audience in. Ably aiding him is Eiza Gonzalez (BABY DRIVER) as KT - another experiment/tool of Dr. Harting's - their relationship is the heart of this movie and it there is "enough" chemistry between the two to make me care about them. The revelation for me in this film is Lamorne Morris (GAME NIGHT) as Wilfred Wigans - a rival hacker who is an enemy (or is he a friend) of Bloodshot. I loved the fun that Wigans brought to the role and the film - he knew what kind of movie he was in and just "ran with it".
Everyone else in this film is pretty "generic" - especially (to my disappointment) Guy Pearce as Dr. Harting. I needed him to be less contained and more broad for this type of comic book film. I read that Michael Sheen was slated to play this role but had to drop out at the last moment due to scheduling conflicts. I would have loved to have seen "wild. out of control Michael Sheen" in this role.
The direction by David Wilson - in his major motion picture debut - is "serviceable", his direction doesn't get in the way. He is a former Visual Effects Supervisor and it shows in this film for it is at it's best when the VFX takes center stage (especially in the fight/action scenes). The key to Bloodshot is that he cannot be killed by conventional means for the nano-bots in his blood stream will reform immediately. So, you get quite a few slow-motion shots of bullets piercing through various parts of Bloodshot's body (with nano-bots flying out) only to have the nano-bots stop their flight away from the body and return to reform the shape of the particular body part (mostly, Bloodshot's head). In lesser hands, this could be an annoying trick, but it worked for me here.
The script and secondary characters and the plot is mostly throwaway in this film - clearly we are here for the fight scenes and the VFX - and if you set your expectations correctly, you will be entertained by this film.
I know I was - to my surprise.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) in Movies
Aug 3, 2020
God-Awful
Pretty much separate from all the other movies, when youngster Sean Black goes to Japan to live with his father, he rebels and gets involved in the underground life of street racing. Since I’m on a streak of reviewing god-awful movies, I present to you The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.
Acting: 5
Beginning: 1
The beginning puts us right in the heart of a cheesy car race. It wasn’t bad, but as I look back over the entirety of the other movies, car races are typically the one thing they get right. So, in comparison, it was actually terrible. Definitely put me in a weird kind of mood for what was to come.
Characters: 8
What the characters lacked in depth, they were at least fun characters to include in the story. If nothing else, at least it’s not Paul Walker! That alone was enough to get my seal of approval.
Cinematography/Visuals: 5
Conflict: 5
Sure there is a motive to drive the story. Is it strong? Not really. Enough to carry a movie? It’ll do. The problem with not having characters with depth is having to rely on the action to drive the story. When there’s not enough of it, you’re in trouble.
Entertainment Value: 5
So here’s the thing: The actual drifting part was kind of cool. I also like the fact that they really make an attempt to get you involved in the Japanese world. At one point, I made the note: “I don’t hate this movie.” At some point that did change, but there was a true moment where the movie held its own for a bit.
Memorability: 3
I couldn’t tell you one memorable line from this movie. I couldn’t tell you one cool action sequence that really got me excited. All I really remember is some drifting and some beautiful Tokyo landscapes…and that’s pretty much all in the title. This is not a repeat watch type of movie.
Pace: 10
Plot: 5
The story had potential. My problem was it kept leaving out pockets of information and it never really felt like I got the full story. It was like I kept getting up to go to the bathroom and missing something crucial each time. There is way too much jumping around for my taste.
Resolution: 5
The ending left me with a mild sense of satisfaction. Even if I wasn’t late to the game and I was watching this for the first time when it was first released, I would’ve still known that there would be more movies to come. That’s what nags at me: The lack of completion. It doesn’t feel like an ending when you know it’s not over.
Overall: 52
Some movies are bad but entertaining. Case and point: The Fast and the Furious Tokyo Drift. You will hate it, but you will also walk away having seen a few solid moments as well. As much as I try and avoid this franchise at all costs, there were glimmers in these early movies that the franchise could be more than what it was. Glad they finally found their way.