Search
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
The latest from Sylvester Stallone since 2008’s Rambo, The Expendables is a movie where the testosterone flows like enemy blood. Both movies have similar themes of redemption, regret, and courage, and also thankfully similar is that the moments of awesomeness are plentiful. The Expendables put up a lot of hype, and it had a lot to live up to with it’s cast of action star greats, but it doesn’t let the audience down. It’s not the cerebral meta-violence of Inglorious Basterds, but a simpler, old-school, fun action movie kind of violence. You can root for your favorite action hero, watch them kick a little bad-guy ass, and sit back and enjoy the show.
The characters, despite the star-studded name dropping on the film’s advertising hype, follow Barney Ross (Stallone) for the most part, and his right-hand-man Lee Christmas (Statham) a close second, with most of the other actors merely rounding out the team. Despite what would seem to be a ripoff from what they advertised on their posters, each character still gets a crowning moment of glory, albeit with less screen time than expected. In addition, these “major” side characters share frequent snide remarks that truly give each person on the team their own humorous depth of character. If you’re a fan of Jet Li or Terry Crews for example, rest assured that they all get their shining moment in the sun.
The plot, while not so simple as to be boring, surrounds an attempt by the team to overthrow a dictator in a small South American country. Complications arise, interpersonal conflicts come up, and from there, the plot takes off. Mercenary soldiers do a lot of bad things, and Stallone and co-screenwriter Dave Callaham give a good shot at prying open the inner world of some of these men as they go about their jobs, and the consequences that their actions (and often inactions) have on the way they see themselves. Granted, this is a fairly emotional touchy-feely way to describe the heart of the film, but don’t worry, these discussions are done with the stoicism and deflective humor you would expect from large men with bulging muscles and raging testosterone. The Expendables isn’t just another mindless action movie; it’s got enough going on beneath the surface to be worth watching again.
For an action blockbuster, it succeeds on most of the metrics we measure such films by, and surprisingly didn’t have many negatives. Do I care about the characters? Yes. Were there long periods without action sequences? No. Was the use of action cliche, or was it clever and original? Hilariously original at times. Was it fun? That’s an explosive yes.
The characters, despite the star-studded name dropping on the film’s advertising hype, follow Barney Ross (Stallone) for the most part, and his right-hand-man Lee Christmas (Statham) a close second, with most of the other actors merely rounding out the team. Despite what would seem to be a ripoff from what they advertised on their posters, each character still gets a crowning moment of glory, albeit with less screen time than expected. In addition, these “major” side characters share frequent snide remarks that truly give each person on the team their own humorous depth of character. If you’re a fan of Jet Li or Terry Crews for example, rest assured that they all get their shining moment in the sun.
The plot, while not so simple as to be boring, surrounds an attempt by the team to overthrow a dictator in a small South American country. Complications arise, interpersonal conflicts come up, and from there, the plot takes off. Mercenary soldiers do a lot of bad things, and Stallone and co-screenwriter Dave Callaham give a good shot at prying open the inner world of some of these men as they go about their jobs, and the consequences that their actions (and often inactions) have on the way they see themselves. Granted, this is a fairly emotional touchy-feely way to describe the heart of the film, but don’t worry, these discussions are done with the stoicism and deflective humor you would expect from large men with bulging muscles and raging testosterone. The Expendables isn’t just another mindless action movie; it’s got enough going on beneath the surface to be worth watching again.
For an action blockbuster, it succeeds on most of the metrics we measure such films by, and surprisingly didn’t have many negatives. Do I care about the characters? Yes. Were there long periods without action sequences? No. Was the use of action cliche, or was it clever and original? Hilariously original at times. Was it fun? That’s an explosive yes.
Newman’s Birds of Southern Africa
Reference and Lifestyle
App
KEY FEATURES • Includes over 1000 high quality photographs. • Universal app, pay once and get...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Mar 17, 2018
Not a bad start to this series
I have a confession to make, I have not seen the Angelina Jolie Lara Croft films, nor am I all that familiar with the video games that have spawned these movies, so it is with a fresh perspective that I judge how good (or bad) this film is.
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And you know what? It's pretty good.
Starring Alicia Vikander, TOMB RAIDER is the origin story of how Lara Croft becomes a...ahem...Tomb Raider. This is the first starring role in a big "tent pole" film for her and she holds the center of the story quite well. Best known as the Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress in THE DANISH GIRL (which I feel was a consolation prize for her from the Academy as a way of apologizing for not even nominating her for her Oscar-worthy performance in EX MACHINA), TOMB RAIDER transforms Ms. Vikander into a viable action star. Her Lara Croft is not a "super-hero" who is impervious to pain, rather, she is a real person (a tough one, I'll admit) but when she gets hurt, she feels it.
Doing everything but twirling his mustache is Walton Goggins as Mathias Vogel a rival Tomb Raider looking to raid the same tomb.
Why are they looking for this tomb? Does it matter? Nope. The fun is in the journey - and what fun there is. Norwegian Director Roar Uthaug (THE WAVE) keeps the action moving swiftly, jumping from one clue to another and one stunt to another, rarely slowing down for the audience to think - and that's a good thing, because as I'm thinking about this film a day later, I'm beginning to punch some pretty big holes in the plot. But...that doesn't matter because watching Croft/Vikander get herself out of trouble is entertaining.
Also shining in this film is Daniel Wu as Lu Ren, who's father, Lu Ren, disappeared chasing the same tomb as Croft's father (Dominic West). Ren and Crofft team up to race Vogel to the tomb.
Along for the ride in smaller-ish roles - in what appears to be the first film of a series - are such stalwarts as Nick Frost (uncredited), Jaime Winstone, Derek Jacobi and Kristen ScottThomas. All of whom must have been promised larger roles in later films in this series.
A solid start to the series. I, for one, will look forward to the next tomb that Lara Croft raids.
Letter Grade B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Year of Living Dangerously (1983) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
A Story That Falls Short
The Year of Living Dangerously follows the story of reporter Guy Hamilton (Mel Gibson) during a tumultuous time of civil unrest in Indonesia.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 1
I won’t lie, I restarted this movie probably three times before I finally committed. It’s hard for a movie to bounce back for me when it gets off to such a sluggish start. The setup borders on painful in spots and it sets the tone for what is to come.
Characters: 6
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
One of the shining moments of the movie as it captures 60’s Indonesia beautifully. I was easily transported into the time period and the culture feeling right at home. I also appreciate how the romance between Hamilton and Jill Bryant (Sigourney Weaver) was captured by director Peter Weir. It felt both endearing and sincere.
Conflict: 6
Entertainment Value: 4
The movie was painfully dry. Outside of the romance, it was hard for anything else to really capture my attention. There were times where I thought things would pick up only to be let down again. Unfortunate as I was hoping for more.
Memorability: 4
It’s a struggle trying to remember anything that stood out in the film. While there were one or two things that got my attention, things were pretty drab for the most part. Sitting through this again would almost be like a brand new boring experience.
Pace: 3
Slower than a turtle, there were times where I begged for this movie to end. I kept holding out hope that things would take a turn. Alas…You can’t take too long to get to the point and be disinteresting. That’s a recipe for disaster.
Plot: 7
The story itself wasn’t bad at all, I just wish they could have found a way to make things more interesting. The lack of layers really made things fall short for me. A lot of unrealized potential here just left on the table.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 61
For more reasons than one, I just couldn’t get into The Year of Living Dangerously. “Hate” would be a strong word as there were glimpses of a solid movie…but I can’t say I liked it. Nor can I recommend it. There are a number of better 80’s classics out there.
Emeli Sande recommended track Big Brother by Stevie Wonder in Talking Book by Stevie Wonder in Music (curated)
7.0
Album
Favorite
Kill Switch
9.0
Rate It
Book
"I've done far worse than what I went to prison for. She has no idea how bad this can get." ...
Devil's night kill switch dark twisted
JT (287 KP) rated Session 9 (2001) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Looking back I’ve written a number of horror film reviews which, probably highlights what my favourite genre is? I’ve not been into torture porn or serious amounts of gore. I don’t mind it in small doses, but I prefer films that get under your skin – case in point, Session 9.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
In order to satisfy the millennials the majority of horror films today get their thrills from cheap jump scares. But real terror comes from the things that we can relate to. Things that go ‘bump‘ in the night or the sense that we are being watched. This for me, is real terror. Directed by Brad Anderson, Session 9 embodies all of that to perfection.
Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
An asbestos cleaning crew are set the task of clearing the abandoned Danvers State Hospital, a job that needs to be done within a week. Company owner Gordon (Peter Mullan) has put a lot of pressure on his team, consisting of Mike (Stephen Gevedon), Phil (David Caruso), Hank (Josh Lucas), and Jeff (Brendan Sexton III), to meet the deadline and collect a bonus. It’s pressure that starts to spill over right from the off.
The hospital is creepy as hell and even in the daylight the crew are plunged into darkness, which doesn’t sit well with Jeff who has a serious case of nyctophobia. They also have to deal with in-fighting amongst the group. On top of the tight deadline Gordon is struggling with the stress of raising a newborn child and arguments with his wife have not helped matters and slowly he becomes dissociated from the group. Meanwhile Mike stumbles across some tapes (nine of them) which are session interviews with a former patient called Mary Hobbes who has multiple personalities, that over the course of each session start to come out.
Phil (David Caruso) & Jeff (Brendan Sexton III) investigate the depths of the hospital
Like Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining – the location starts to take hold of each of the men, sending them spiraling into a world of personal madness. A number of subplots become interconnected the longer the film goes on and the pacing, while slow for some horror fans, is brilliantly orchestrated for those with patience. Despite being made in 2001 and with a low return at the box office, it has been able to creep out audiences years later.
What makes the film even more terrifying is the setting. The film was shot in the actual Danvers State Hospital so it needed little doing to it in terms of effects. The hospital was said to be the birth place of the prefrontal lobotomy (something which is referenced in the film), and part of me thinks that the fear on the actors faces as they walk the halls was in fact genuine terror. If that is the case then it only adds to the horror.
Session 9 will stay with you long after the credits. It doesn’t rely on heavy gore or CGI and builds tension with what you think you can see and at times – what you can’t.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated American Horror Story - Season 5 in TV
Dec 5, 2019
AHS season 5 - subtitled 'Hotel' - is a real mixture of genres. It's part vampire dram, part crime-mystery thriller, part haunted house... It's ambitious to say the least.
A lot of people took issue with Hotel before it even aired, mainly due the absence of series favourite Jessica Lange, but in all honesty, as much as I like her, I didn't find myself missing her all that much, and the same goes for subsequent entries!
The season this time around is headed by Lady Gaga, who plays a pretty decent psuedo-villain - The Countess is unnerving, relatable, creepy, and tragic all at the same time, and is the beating heart of Hotel.
Not far behind is Evan Peters Mr March. I personally found this character a bit too cartoony at times, but he's still an important character, especially pulling strings behind everyone else back.
I also loved Kathy Bates and Denis O'Hare in this season, and their characters, and especially their devotion to The Countess, make the Hotel Cortez and oddly alluring place to be.
Wes Bentley gets a starring turn this time around after a bit part in Freak Show, and I actually enjoyed his character arc after not particularly caring to begin with.
Once again, I liked most if the cast, I just found it a shame that Sarah Paulson didn't get much to do here!
The plot itself is pretty thick in Hotel, lots of twists and turns, lots of different time periods being visited, and it's quite disorientating to begin with. It's a less accessible season than before but once you get into it, it's a great supernatural mystery horror ride with some inspiration from The Shining and Twin Peaks thrown in for good measure.
Just to top it off, we even get an appearance from Queenie, creating a direct connection to Coven and the wider AHS universe, an aspect of this show that I truly enjoy.
It's not my favourite season of AHS, (that Devil's Night episode was annoyingly cringey) but all in all, Hotel is pretty engaging television.
A lot of people took issue with Hotel before it even aired, mainly due the absence of series favourite Jessica Lange, but in all honesty, as much as I like her, I didn't find myself missing her all that much, and the same goes for subsequent entries!
The season this time around is headed by Lady Gaga, who plays a pretty decent psuedo-villain - The Countess is unnerving, relatable, creepy, and tragic all at the same time, and is the beating heart of Hotel.
Not far behind is Evan Peters Mr March. I personally found this character a bit too cartoony at times, but he's still an important character, especially pulling strings behind everyone else back.
I also loved Kathy Bates and Denis O'Hare in this season, and their characters, and especially their devotion to The Countess, make the Hotel Cortez and oddly alluring place to be.
Wes Bentley gets a starring turn this time around after a bit part in Freak Show, and I actually enjoyed his character arc after not particularly caring to begin with.
Once again, I liked most if the cast, I just found it a shame that Sarah Paulson didn't get much to do here!
The plot itself is pretty thick in Hotel, lots of twists and turns, lots of different time periods being visited, and it's quite disorientating to begin with. It's a less accessible season than before but once you get into it, it's a great supernatural mystery horror ride with some inspiration from The Shining and Twin Peaks thrown in for good measure.
Just to top it off, we even get an appearance from Queenie, creating a direct connection to Coven and the wider AHS universe, an aspect of this show that I truly enjoy.
It's not my favourite season of AHS, (that Devil's Night episode was annoyingly cringey) but all in all, Hotel is pretty engaging television.
Lonely Planet Pocket Bruges & Brussels
Lonely Planet and Helena Smith
Book
Lonely Planet: The world's leading travel guide publisher Lonely Planet Pocket Bruges & Brussels is...
James Koppert (2698 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Mar 29, 2020
A Phenomenon
There are some young adults books, Harry Potter, Letter for the King, His Dark Materials that can be translated through the languages of the world and for decades or more, be held up as classics of young literature, deserved to be read and bring joy for all ages. Thorn deserves to be held up in equal company as these. I won't beat about the bush, this is an exceptional, beautiful entertaining tale deserving to be a global best-seller for many many years. If you read my reviews I don't thrust such extreme praise on everything I read, but Thorn is the type of book you end up taking a days holiday off work just to carry on engaging with this wonderful story.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.
Intisar Khanani is a very special writer, like Neil Gaiman, she takes the world and weaves an understated thread of magic and fantasy into the story that provides an undercurrent which bubbles to the surface. The fact it is understated brings you a acceptance without question of the world you are reading, so magic spells and talking horses are as accepted as characters eating a meal. Intisar Khanani's writing flows effortlessly. When you are reading a true master of the art, they write in a way where you forget you are reading at all and are simply viewing a world from the pages. This is such a book.
Thorn contains very human characters who you will feel a deep tenderness for. It contains morality and dilemma asking you to question whether you put your happiness first or the duty of bettering the world? What is justice and rule? Do you seek justice through revenge or lessons as just a few. Yet these moralities are not there to beat you round the head, they are part of the grain of the story where you raise the questions alongside that of the adorable lead character whose gentle female strength is ferocious, again in a beautifully subtle way.
I don't want to give away any of the plot, I want you t pick up the book and let it unravel before your eyes like I did. Be wicked away into a rich multicultural world full of what i hope are many stories yet to be told.
Thorn may not just be the best young adult book of the decade, it could well be one of the best fantasy novels as well, that will be read and then re-read for the next few decades and beyond. Intisar Khanani is about to be a global superstar and deserves every particle of light the spotlight is made up of shining on her.