Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated War of the Worlds (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In a summer season of grand blockbusters, War of the Worlds” is perhaps the biggest dud in years, and is a failure of epic proportions. The film is a remake of the classic 1953 film of the same name which like the new one is inspired from the H.G. Wells novel of 1898.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
The new version is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a divorced dockworker who is spending some time with his estranged children, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), and Rachael (Dakota Fanning), while his ex-wife and her new husband take a trip.
The children are very cold to Ray as they feel they were dumped on their mother as Ray only cares about himself. When a series of freak electrical storms hits various cities around the world, Ray attempts to comfort his children who are disturbed by the storm as well as the fact that all electronic devices have ceased to function.
Ray leaves the children at home and ventures into the neighborhood and is soon facing a waking nightmare as giant machines burst from the ground laying waste to everything in their paths.
Ray gathers his family and flees in a working vehicle trying to stay one step ahead of the alien machines in an attempt to find safety and reunite the children with their mother in Boston.
As basic as the above plot outline is, it is pretty much the entire plot of the film. There is little else to it aside from a few interruptions such as the family seeking shelter in a couple of houses or facing an angry mob as they attempt to reach a ferry.
While a thin plot can be excused for many action films, what cannot be excused are the painfully bad lack of any excitement in the film and the lack of any compelling action or suspense.
We are supposed to believe that the world is being destroyed by the alien’s but aside from a few blasted bridges, and small buildings, we see a surprising lack of carnage. There are no sequences of classic landmarks being reduced to rubble, there are no scenes of vast armies locked in a desperate struggle against the invaders.
Instead, we get a sequence of helicopters firing, and a line of soldiers firing, but they never show us what they are shooting at, nor do we see the alien retaliation behind a bright explosion and a few vehicles emerging on fire. This is particularly frustrating when you consider that the 1954 version at least showed a few tanks being blasted outright.
Another issue I had with the film was the painfully obvious superimposed backdrops as during the films limited action scenes; the background was clearly inserted into the shot as it was so fuzzy that it did not fit in with the events in the foreground.
While I am willing to dismiss this as stylistic nitpicking what cannot be ignored is that for most of the films running length, the cast does little more than stand around waiting for something to happen.
There are no great segments of character development, no insight into why the aliens waited all this time to attack when they could have done so centuries earlier, why they want the planet, and numerous other plot holes, some of which are so glaring. One of my favorites was the guy who was able to use a video camera to record the opening attacks when it was clearly shown that all electronic devices were rendered useless.
Much has been made of Cruise’s recent off screen actions and I must say that those have been far more interesting and engaging than his performance here. Cruise spends the majority of the film in a wide-eyed gaze or frantically moving and yelling. His character like his annoyingly bratty daughter are so unsympathetic, I found myself hoping that the aliens would take them out and end our suffering.
I hate stated prior that I thought this film may have problems as in light of films such as “ID4”, the story would seem bland to modern audiences unless the action was increased and there was a dynamic story with interesting characters. Sadly all of those are missing from a film that also has one of the worst endings in recent history.
There is no build up, no final confrontation, no moment of high tension to get to the payoff; it just ends with a whimper. One would think that a grand battle or an effects royale is in store instead, it plays out in a very matter of fact fashion with shockingly little action or suspense.
I could go on and on, but suffice it to say that between the weak acting, tired, thin plot, and infrequent and underwhelming action and effects, this is a film that exists only due to the talents of Cruise and Spielberg., That being said, I have to wonder how and why they could not have picked a better product than this stale offering.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Something Borrowed (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
“Sometimes good people do bad things!”
Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a successful New York City lawyer, the ever-loyal and perpetual good girl, who, on the night of her surprise 30th birthday party, sleeps with Dex, her old study buddy and secret crush from law school. Unfortunately, Dex happens to be the fiancé of Rachel’s egotistical best friend Darcy’s (Kate Hudson). Throughout the movie you find Rachel conflicted with the thought of hurting her best friend because she has just realized she is in love with Dex (Colin Egglesfield). Dex feels equally guilty for having fallen for Rachel but would rather do what everyone expects him to do, as opposed to following his heart.
As Rachel tries to assist the self-absorbed party girl Darcy plan her wedding, she finds it difficult to to hide her feelings for Dex. Rachel and Darcy’s childhood friend Ethan (John Krasinski) figures out that Rachel and Dex are more than just friends. He lends a shoulder for Rachel to lean on as well as some very harsh criticisms to help her realize that she does deserve to be happy.
Based on the novel written by Emily Giffin, Something Borrowed is a romantic comedy that explores the true meaning of friendship, love and ethics. Always a fan of Ginnifer Goodwin, she does a decent job at playing our heroine/doormat, Rachel White. Kate Hudson was spot-on with the role of self-centered, always-gets-her-way Darcy. And let’s not forget the Tom Cruise look-alike, Colin Egglesfield, who for some reason didn’t impress me much as Dex. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was definitely something missing there. Plug in some weekend getaways to the Hamptons, some awkward drinking and partying moments, some flashback moments of Darcy and Rachel’s childhood as well as flashbacks to Rachel’s law school days when she was swooning over Dex and voila! A mediocre, very predictable movie. I’d have to say if it wasn’t for the sarcastic comedic stylings of John Krasinski as Ethan, this movie would have been a major flop.
This film is definitely a twist on My Best Friend’s Wedding, but not in the best way. If nothing else, it’s worth seeing as a “girls night out” kind of movie!
Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin) is a successful New York City lawyer, the ever-loyal and perpetual good girl, who, on the night of her surprise 30th birthday party, sleeps with Dex, her old study buddy and secret crush from law school. Unfortunately, Dex happens to be the fiancé of Rachel’s egotistical best friend Darcy’s (Kate Hudson). Throughout the movie you find Rachel conflicted with the thought of hurting her best friend because she has just realized she is in love with Dex (Colin Egglesfield). Dex feels equally guilty for having fallen for Rachel but would rather do what everyone expects him to do, as opposed to following his heart.
As Rachel tries to assist the self-absorbed party girl Darcy plan her wedding, she finds it difficult to to hide her feelings for Dex. Rachel and Darcy’s childhood friend Ethan (John Krasinski) figures out that Rachel and Dex are more than just friends. He lends a shoulder for Rachel to lean on as well as some very harsh criticisms to help her realize that she does deserve to be happy.
Based on the novel written by Emily Giffin, Something Borrowed is a romantic comedy that explores the true meaning of friendship, love and ethics. Always a fan of Ginnifer Goodwin, she does a decent job at playing our heroine/doormat, Rachel White. Kate Hudson was spot-on with the role of self-centered, always-gets-her-way Darcy. And let’s not forget the Tom Cruise look-alike, Colin Egglesfield, who for some reason didn’t impress me much as Dex. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there was definitely something missing there. Plug in some weekend getaways to the Hamptons, some awkward drinking and partying moments, some flashback moments of Darcy and Rachel’s childhood as well as flashbacks to Rachel’s law school days when she was swooning over Dex and voila! A mediocre, very predictable movie. I’d have to say if it wasn’t for the sarcastic comedic stylings of John Krasinski as Ethan, this movie would have been a major flop.
This film is definitely a twist on My Best Friend’s Wedding, but not in the best way. If nothing else, it’s worth seeing as a “girls night out” kind of movie!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Rock of Ages (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Rock of Ages is a film adaptation of the 2006 Chris D’Arienzo comedy rock/jukebox Broadway musical.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
It is lightly satirical, a parody at times, that seems to mock our beloved 80’s rock era, while honoring its eccentricities, its tight leopard print pants, big hair, shoulder pads and over the top MTV music videos.
I like to judge a movie not only by how it makes me feel but also by how the audience reacts. This wasn’t an in-your-face-slapstick comedy, yet the whole theater roared with laughter throughout the film. To sum up the experience of Rock of Ages, it’s like watching a string of 80’s music videos mashed into a weak plot, with well-timed laughing points. Some of us laughed because we remember being the ones with those crazy hair-dos and out-of-control fashion sense and some were just laughing because this movie was so well done. It walked the fine line between super over-the-top corny and truly honoring our rock heritage. This movie does play to a specific demographic of ages 30 to 50, those who, with great nostalgia, remember how the 80’s rock and fashion revolution shaped their lives.
As the song goes, just a small town girl, Sherrie Christian played by Julianne Hough, travels to the big city in search of her dreams of becoming a singer, where she meets her city boy, Drew Boley played by Diego Boneta. Together they embark on a musical romance while working at a rock club named The Bourbon Room. Alec Baldwin plays an old rocker named Dennis Dupree struggling to keep his legend of a night club/concert hall open. Russell Brand, as always, steps in as the comic relief while playing the club owner;s assistant named Lonny. Together they work to keep The Bourbon Room afloat while dealing with a vengeful Patricia Whitmore, played by Catherine Zeta-Jones, who wishes nothing more then to see The Bourbon Room burned to the ground.
There are points in this movie when the acting, the singing and yes, even the plot, grabs you and holds your attention, much like watching the train wreck we call 80’s fashion. Its painful but you can’t look away! There were other times in this movie when the singing felt like it would go on forever. I noticed that the low points would be immediately succeeded by a very entertaining turn of events, so my attention was not lost for long. There came a point, at about the third Glee style 80’s rock mash-up, where I felt like slapping the director, Adam Shankman. Even too much of a good thing can get boring and I felt Shankman reached that point several times in the film. Luckily, he redeemed himself by bringing in Tom Cruise to play the Satan worshiping, alcoholic, megalomaniacal rock god Stacee Jaxx who went above and beyond in perfecting his role.
This movie’s soundtrack features songs and power ballads from Guns N’ Roses, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Journey, Twisted Sister, Pat Benetar, Scorpions, Whitesnake, Poison, REO Speedwagon, Foreigner among other epic bands giving Rock of Ages it’s 80’s jukebox musical foundation.
Mary J. Blige, Cruise, Ale Baldwin, Boneta, Hough and the whole cast of mega stars went above and beyond in selling their characters and performing stunning and accurate vocals that really pulled this movie together. The corny 80’s fashion and authentic dance numbers were the real icing on the cake. If you can sit through two hours of 80’s rock and pop nostalgia and know you will enjoy it, then definitely check this movie out.
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).
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Mission: Impossible (1996) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
Great Start to An Awesome Series
I remember seeing this trailer for the first time during a Super Bowl. As an eleven-year-old, this trailer had everything I wanted, jaw-dropping action left and right. When I finally saw the movie, I was slightly underwhelmed. I liked it, sure, but I didn’t expect to have to do so much damn thinking. As I got older, the more I watched the film, the more I liked it. Its overall appeal still holds strong today.
After being framed for killing his entire team, agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) must get to the bottom of who did it and why while escaping prosecution at the same time.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Pretty solid opener as you get to see Agent Hunt performing his job for the first time. I love what director Brian DePalma did with this first scene as he gives you just enough to get you intrigued. It wasn’t perfect as it leaves you with a couple questions you hope get answered, but it definitely gets the job done.
Characters: 10
Hunt is a young agent who is just as agile as he is cunning. You can tell this guy really knows how to control a room. He leads a diverse group of characters with their own set of skills and their own respective problems. I enjoyed these characters because each of them seemed like they could shake your hand one minute and stab you in the back the next. You had no idea who to trust. They keep the story fresh and interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
This is definitely a movie you have to pay attention to as I alluded earlier. There were times where I had to remind myself of things that had happened earlier since they now fit more into the story. The temporary confusion kept this category out of perfection, but I will say that everything does eventually get revealed before it’s all said and done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Mission: Impossible has a timeless appeal that hasn’t seem to have gotten old yet. Even though it’s the first, I still have it ranked up there as one of the best. If you’ve decided to give this series a try, do yourself a favor and start here, then skip the second (awful and zero relevance to the rest of the series), and head straight for the third. You’ll thank me.
After being framed for killing his entire team, agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) must get to the bottom of who did it and why while escaping prosecution at the same time.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 9
Pretty solid opener as you get to see Agent Hunt performing his job for the first time. I love what director Brian DePalma did with this first scene as he gives you just enough to get you intrigued. It wasn’t perfect as it leaves you with a couple questions you hope get answered, but it definitely gets the job done.
Characters: 10
Hunt is a young agent who is just as agile as he is cunning. You can tell this guy really knows how to control a room. He leads a diverse group of characters with their own set of skills and their own respective problems. I enjoyed these characters because each of them seemed like they could shake your hand one minute and stab you in the back the next. You had no idea who to trust. They keep the story fresh and interesting.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Genre: 9
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 9
This is definitely a movie you have to pay attention to as I alluded earlier. There were times where I had to remind myself of things that had happened earlier since they now fit more into the story. The temporary confusion kept this category out of perfection, but I will say that everything does eventually get revealed before it’s all said and done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Mission: Impossible has a timeless appeal that hasn’t seem to have gotten old yet. Even though it’s the first, I still have it ranked up there as one of the best. If you’ve decided to give this series a try, do yourself a favor and start here, then skip the second (awful and zero relevance to the rest of the series), and head straight for the third. You’ll thank me.
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated Unbound (Colours of Love, #1) in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Grace Lawson is about to start the greatest internship. She gets to spend three months in London, interning at Huntington Ventures. Jonathan Huntington, the company's CEO is a gorgeous guy who is almost always wearing black. Catching the red-eye to London from Chicago, and having to rush off the plane to make it to her new job on time, Grace runs(literally)into Jonathan Huntington at the airport. Making the mistake of thinking he was there to pick her up, she gets a ride with him in his limo(along with some colleagues he was actually waiting for) to the office. Feeling embarrassed the whole time.
Once at Huntington Ventures, Jonathan extends her internship from working in the investment department to working side by side with him. Grace or no one else in the company was expecting this turn of events. Jonathan has never had an intern working with him before. Will Grace be able to work this closely with Jonathan without falling in love with him? Everyone has warned her about this man, including Jonathan himself. This is going to be an interesting and exciting three months.
Unbound is the first in the Colors of Love series by Kathryn Taylor. I'm not sure how many books total are in the series. Book two Uncovered, is set to be released in the United States on August 17, 2015.
This book starts off a lot like 50 Shades of Grey. The virgin meets this wealthy, handsome man and is enticed by his power and the fact that he is unattainable. Jonathan's sexual desires aren't sadistic the way Christian Grey's are, I would say he's just a bit kinky. Then there's a little "Eyes Wide Shut"(Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman sex club movie) thrown in. I enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes are believable. I think a few words may have been lost in translation, though, as I believe this book was first written in German. For instance, the word clit is never used, but "sensitive place" is used quite a bit and, in my opinion, in those instances, clit would have been an appropriate word to use.
I'm not a big fan of Jonathan Harrington, he seems to be abrasive to everyone. Grace seems a little naive for a woman embarking on her own to London for three months. Maybe these two are meant to be or maybe we have another erotic romance series on our hands that we will grow to love to hate like 50 Shades and the Crossfire series. Either way, come on August for Colors of Love #2 - Uncovered.
Once at Huntington Ventures, Jonathan extends her internship from working in the investment department to working side by side with him. Grace or no one else in the company was expecting this turn of events. Jonathan has never had an intern working with him before. Will Grace be able to work this closely with Jonathan without falling in love with him? Everyone has warned her about this man, including Jonathan himself. This is going to be an interesting and exciting three months.
Unbound is the first in the Colors of Love series by Kathryn Taylor. I'm not sure how many books total are in the series. Book two Uncovered, is set to be released in the United States on August 17, 2015.
This book starts off a lot like 50 Shades of Grey. The virgin meets this wealthy, handsome man and is enticed by his power and the fact that he is unattainable. Jonathan's sexual desires aren't sadistic the way Christian Grey's are, I would say he's just a bit kinky. Then there's a little "Eyes Wide Shut"(Tom Cruise/Nicole Kidman sex club movie) thrown in. I enjoyed this book. The erotic scenes are believable. I think a few words may have been lost in translation, though, as I believe this book was first written in German. For instance, the word clit is never used, but "sensitive place" is used quite a bit and, in my opinion, in those instances, clit would have been an appropriate word to use.
I'm not a big fan of Jonathan Harrington, he seems to be abrasive to everyone. Grace seems a little naive for a woman embarking on her own to London for three months. Maybe these two are meant to be or maybe we have another erotic romance series on our hands that we will grow to love to hate like 50 Shades and the Crossfire series. Either way, come on August for Colors of Love #2 - Uncovered.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) in Movies
Sep 22, 2019
The creature lurks!
In the Amazon jungle, a prehistoric amphibian claw fossil is found prodding local scientists to investigate its origins. They decide on an expedition to gain more information and possibly locate its origins.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Collateral (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Max (Jamie Foxx), is a man with ambition. He toils his evenings driving a cab in Los Angeles while dreaming of opening his own limo company and making it big. Sadly Max is also a man who is hampered by indecision, as he is unable to take the final step to move towards his dream preferring for the comfort of always dreaming rather than achieving.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
In the new Drama “Collateral”, Max is about to have his notion of life and the world turned upside down by a passenger named Vincent (Tom Cruise), who is a polar opposite of Max in every way. Vincent is a well-dressed business man who hires Max for the evening as he needs to make five stops in order to complete what he says are real estate deals. Although reluctant at first, the thought of $600.00 for a few hours work soon convinces Max to take the job and ferry Vincent around Los Angeles.
En route to the first stop, Vincent questions Max about why he is waiting to start his company when he could easily lease a Town car to get started and expand from there. The question unsettles the usually mild Max as what the stranger is saying makes a lot of sense but it also undermines the fact that Max is uncomfortable with taking the next step be it in his business ventures or in his social life such as calling an attractive attorney who was clearly interested in him.
While waiting for Vincent after the first stop, the sky literally falls upon Max’s word when a body crashes on his cab and Vincent forces Max at gunpoint to hide the body and continue driving him around. Vincent has one evening to complete his rounds and each stop will result in another death despite Max’s best efforts to intervene. No matter what Max attempts to get out of the situation or to again help, Vincent is always one step ahead of him and able to manipulate Max.
It does not take long for the tense situation to escalate as the result of Vincent’s work has not gone unnoticed by the police largely due to Max’s involvement, and this only causes Vincent to become even more focused and even more of a danger to Max as he needs to complete his tasks before morning and stay ahead of the police and other potential dangers.
“Collateral” is a gripping and intense thriller that contains some of the best work Cruise has done in his career as he portrays Vincent as a complex character who does not find fault with what he does and has no qualms about taking life, yet is amazed by Max and his unrealized dreams and moved by a performance at a local Jazz club.
One could almost call Vincent a Gentleman bandit were it not for the vast amounts of death and destruction he leaves in his wake. He is clearly an intelligent person who makes no apologies for what he does as he sees it as an insignificant blip in the vast universe.
Foxx meanwhile plays off character as he plays a very quite and withdrawn individual that has to be forced out of his shell. After years of playing brash and outrageous characters it was refreshing to see this talented actor turn in an emotional yet restrained performance that shows that he is a talent on the rise and if properly used, can be a gigantic star as not only is he capable of humor and drama, he can easily move to action when it is warranted and looks comfy and competent doing so.
The film also has some impressive visuals as Director Michael Mann gives viewers some amazing shots of the L.A. skyline at night, and the way he shoots the streets and back alleys with a neon glow gives the film a very natural look. On more than one occasion, I go a sense of déjà vu as the natural manner in which the surrounding city and citizens behave and look like a day in the life of rather than a movie set.
The film does drag a bit roughly ¾ in and some may find the ending a bit pat, but that being said, “Collateral” is a solid action drama and one of the best films of the year.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Death on the Nile (2022) in Movies
Feb 7, 2022
Originally set to release in December of 2019; the long-delayed cinematic retelling of Agatha Christie’s “Death on the Nile” has finally arrived in cinemas. The last cinematic version of the classic book arrived in 1978 and this time; Director and star Kenneth Branagh beings his version of Master Detective Hercule Poirot to Egypt after a chance encounter with his friend Bouc (Tom Bateman) while on vacation; Poirot attends the wedding of wealthy socialite Linette Ridgeway (Gal Gadot) and notices that she has married a man named Simon Doyle (Armie Hammer).
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
The wedding is a bit of a shock to many as just six weeks prior Doyle was engaged to Jacqueline de Bellefort (Emma Mackey), and Poirot observed the two of them in a London club and how Ridgeway was introduced to Simon by her friend Jacqueline.
The wedding reception is disrupted by the arrival of Jacqueline and Linette and Simon confides in Poirot that she has been following them around the world and asks the Detective to encourage her to leave them alone so they can get on with their life.
Jacqueline is highly disturbed and pleads her love for Simon and shows a gun which leads Poirot to encourage the newlyweds to abandon their overseas plans and go home. Simon and Linette press on and decide to take their wedding party on a cruise of the Nile in an attempt to get away from Jacqueline.
The plan seems to be working well until Jacqueline shows up as a ticketed passenger at a stop along the way. When a near-fatal accident occurs followed by a murder; Poirot must investigate the guests to find the killer. Naturally, there is plenty of motivation to go around, and as the deaths mount; Poirot must use his genius to find the killer.
The movie takes its time getting started but the CGI-enhanced scenery and the strong cast are very compelling and set the pieces in place very well. While I was able to solve the mystery about halfway into the film, some of the details around it were cleverly concealed and there were plenty of twists that had me consider other possible suspects.
Some may find the film a bit slow but that is the nature of a good mystery as time is given to developing the characters and their motives which adds to the suspense of the film.
In the end, the film is an engaging mystery that recalls the classic movie mysteries of old and it will be very interesting to see if audiences will embrace the film in the same way as they did with “Murder on the Orient Express” and audiences will get more Poirot adventures from Branagh in the near future.
4 stars out of 5.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Live Die Repeat: Edge of Tomorrow (2014) in Movies
Jun 5, 2019
Hits You From Jump and Keeps Rolling
Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) finds himself thrust into a war he wanted no part of against an enemy that gains the advantage by rewinding time. After he gains their power, he has to figure out a way to stop them and end their terror for good.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Edge of Tomorrow grabs your attention from the opening credits. The screen starts to crackle and break up as we’re placed right in the middle of a number of news reports describing the current situation. It’s a clever way to get you caught up to speed without starting slow.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Science fiction movies and war movies have some of the greatest cinematic scenes in film history. You combine the two genres and you’re left with pure gold. Edge of Tomorrow has a way of capturing grit, ugliness, and beauty at the same time. As you’re watching the alien creatures tear through things like it’s paper, you’re also marveling at everything director Doug Liman is capturing on the screen at once. It was a pleasure watching the mech suits in action, a mixture of old-school tech and advanced weaponry. The attention to detail throughout is to be applauded. The aliens alone are incredibly creative and intriguing to see on the battlefield.
Conflict: 10
Oftentimes, when I watch a film like this, I wonder how they’re able to still squeeze a story in when there is so much action. The battles are consistent and take you across a number of different landscapes as Cage has to keep reliving the day. It’s seriously badass once Cage has started to perfect the day enough where he’s killing the enemy left and right.
Although the action is amazing, that isn’t the sole thing carrying the conflict as Cage and Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) are trying to figure out what exactly they need to do bring the nightmare to an end. They are at ends throughout the movie, even to the point where Cage wants to throw in the towel a number of times. It feels very real.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Very solid storyline that manages to stay out of its own way by not overcomplicating things. I appreciated the fact that the screenwriters (and there are multiple) didn’t try and cut any corners, but looked for proper ways to advance the story. And that ending…
Resolution: 10
Just perfect. Ends right were it needs to with you wanting more, but knowing you don’t really need it. The closure is spot on. Well done.
Overall: 10
Chalk one up for the blockbusters, Edge of Tomorrow stands on my Top Ten list all-time as of today. It keeps you guessing, but most importantly, it keeps you entertained. I won’t apologize for the high rating as this film checks all the boxes.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Edge of Tomorrow grabs your attention from the opening credits. The screen starts to crackle and break up as we’re placed right in the middle of a number of news reports describing the current situation. It’s a clever way to get you caught up to speed without starting slow.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Science fiction movies and war movies have some of the greatest cinematic scenes in film history. You combine the two genres and you’re left with pure gold. Edge of Tomorrow has a way of capturing grit, ugliness, and beauty at the same time. As you’re watching the alien creatures tear through things like it’s paper, you’re also marveling at everything director Doug Liman is capturing on the screen at once. It was a pleasure watching the mech suits in action, a mixture of old-school tech and advanced weaponry. The attention to detail throughout is to be applauded. The aliens alone are incredibly creative and intriguing to see on the battlefield.
Conflict: 10
Oftentimes, when I watch a film like this, I wonder how they’re able to still squeeze a story in when there is so much action. The battles are consistent and take you across a number of different landscapes as Cage has to keep reliving the day. It’s seriously badass once Cage has started to perfect the day enough where he’s killing the enemy left and right.
Although the action is amazing, that isn’t the sole thing carrying the conflict as Cage and Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt) are trying to figure out what exactly they need to do bring the nightmare to an end. They are at ends throughout the movie, even to the point where Cage wants to throw in the towel a number of times. It feels very real.
Genre: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Very solid storyline that manages to stay out of its own way by not overcomplicating things. I appreciated the fact that the screenwriters (and there are multiple) didn’t try and cut any corners, but looked for proper ways to advance the story. And that ending…
Resolution: 10
Just perfect. Ends right were it needs to with you wanting more, but knowing you don’t really need it. The closure is spot on. Well done.
Overall: 10
Chalk one up for the blockbusters, Edge of Tomorrow stands on my Top Ten list all-time as of today. It keeps you guessing, but most importantly, it keeps you entertained. I won’t apologize for the high rating as this film checks all the boxes.