Search
Search results
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Thor: The Dark World (2013) in Movies
May 18, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Thor: The Dark World is one of a few MCU movies that I hadn't seen many times, and never since its' initial release. It has the reputation of been one of the weakest/worst entries in the 'continuity' however my memory of it was that it was okay. Having watched 'Endgame ' (several times!) and seeing that movie revisit a segment of the God of Thunders second solo outing I decided to give it another viewing.
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
Personally speaking, I still enjoyed it and think the reputation is a bit harsh. I prefer it to the first film but it falls way behind 'Ragnarok'. The visual effects are first rate and surpass some of those that would be seen in later Marvel movies.
Hemsworth is great however I can see why Hemsworth could have grown weary with the part (The Thor of Ragnarok onwards is a delight). Likewise with Hiddleston. The two have great on screen chemistry.
The story is simple enough - the dark Elf Malkeith awakens after a long period of sleep/exile to harness the power of the Aether, with the aim of plunging the Universe into darkness. Natalie Portman returns as Jane Foster in a role key to events, effectively serving as the plot device with which events kick start. This is also the first MCU entry to start referencing the Infinity Stones and tying together the various macguffins seen so far.
The film drags in places, more so during the second act, however the final battle is a visual delight.
Not therefore the worst, but certainly not the best!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
Whatchareadin (174 KP) rated The Girl on the Train in Books
Apr 9, 2019
Rachel Watson rides the train every day to a job she was fired from months ago. She spend the day in the city until it is time to go home again. As she passes the town of Witney, she always looks at two houses on Blenheim Road. Number 15 and number 23. Rachel used to live at 23 Blenheim Road with her husband Tom. But that was 2 years ago. Now she lives in a flat with her friend Cathy in Ashbury. Number 15 is occupied by Scott and Megan Hipwell who Rachel likes to refer to as Jess and John. Rachel enjoys watching Megan and Scott and their happy life together, so much unlike her own. Until one day, she sees something she knows she shouldn't have and then the next day Megan is reported missing. Could the information she have be the key to the investigation? Will the investigators believe her, or will they think she is just a lonely, drunkard who will try anything to get closer to her ex and his new wife.
I have been waiting to read this book for a very long time. It has been on my hold list at the library for about 4 months. I couldn't put it down. It kept me on the edge of my seat and I had to know what was going to happen next. There were a lot of shocking things about this book that makes you want to know who the culprit was. Who has Megan and what have they done with her? There were times where I was a bit confused about the different dates. The book goes from present to past from chapter to chapter and from person to person. I found myself flipping back to see where I was in the story to keep myself straight.
Overall, this is a good book. One that I will recommend over and over. It's a great thriller that you will not want to put down.
I have been waiting to read this book for a very long time. It has been on my hold list at the library for about 4 months. I couldn't put it down. It kept me on the edge of my seat and I had to know what was going to happen next. There were a lot of shocking things about this book that makes you want to know who the culprit was. Who has Megan and what have they done with her? There were times where I was a bit confused about the different dates. The book goes from present to past from chapter to chapter and from person to person. I found myself flipping back to see where I was in the story to keep myself straight.
Overall, this is a good book. One that I will recommend over and over. It's a great thriller that you will not want to put down.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Futurama: Into the Wild Green Yonder (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The fourth (and lets hope not final) of the planned straight to DVD Futurama movies, “Futurama: Into The Wild Green Yonder” has arrived and continues the winning formula of the television series and three previous films as well as ties things up nicely should this be the final outing for the Planet Express crew.
The film opens with a new take on the traditional opening and we are treated to the scenic Mars Vegas complete with futuristic interpretations of the class Las Vegas hotels. As the film opens, Mars Vegas is being destroyed to make way for a new and even better Mars Vegas. This does not sit well with Amy (Lauren Tom) as her father is the one behind all of this, and when she learns that he plans to eliminate portions of a solar system to make the universes biggest miniature golf course, she decides to join a militant feminist group with Leela (Katey Sagal).
As this is happening Fry (Billy West), learns that he has the power to read minds and is recruited by a secret organization who inform him of a great evil that is loose in the galaxy and that he will be the key to preserving the universe.
Bender (John Di Maggio), as usual is happy to drink and grift his way through life, that is until a affair with a local crime figures wife provides him with some danger and distraction.
When a planned protest goes horribly wrong, Leela and Amy end up as fugitives and are doggedly pursued by Captain Zapp Brannigan as they race against the clock to save the creatures of the solar system from Leo Wong’s planned construction.
The film is as usual, loaded with laughs and plenty of pop culture gags. Snoop Dogg and Penn Jilette make cameo appearances as do many of the characters from the series.
With sharp picture and sound, this is a very enjoyable new adventure for fans and should add demand for future adventures in the series and provide great viewing enjoyment.
There are loads of extras which include deleted scenes, commentaries, as well as deleted scenes.
The film opens with a new take on the traditional opening and we are treated to the scenic Mars Vegas complete with futuristic interpretations of the class Las Vegas hotels. As the film opens, Mars Vegas is being destroyed to make way for a new and even better Mars Vegas. This does not sit well with Amy (Lauren Tom) as her father is the one behind all of this, and when she learns that he plans to eliminate portions of a solar system to make the universes biggest miniature golf course, she decides to join a militant feminist group with Leela (Katey Sagal).
As this is happening Fry (Billy West), learns that he has the power to read minds and is recruited by a secret organization who inform him of a great evil that is loose in the galaxy and that he will be the key to preserving the universe.
Bender (John Di Maggio), as usual is happy to drink and grift his way through life, that is until a affair with a local crime figures wife provides him with some danger and distraction.
When a planned protest goes horribly wrong, Leela and Amy end up as fugitives and are doggedly pursued by Captain Zapp Brannigan as they race against the clock to save the creatures of the solar system from Leo Wong’s planned construction.
The film is as usual, loaded with laughs and plenty of pop culture gags. Snoop Dogg and Penn Jilette make cameo appearances as do many of the characters from the series.
With sharp picture and sound, this is a very enjoyable new adventure for fans and should add demand for future adventures in the series and provide great viewing enjoyment.
There are loads of extras which include deleted scenes, commentaries, as well as deleted scenes.
Corey Richard Bennett (10 KP) rated The Lost Symbol: (Robert Langdon Book 3) in Books
Jul 19, 2019
Drags on after action ends (1 more)
Unsatisfactory ending
Contains spoilers, click to show
Okay, so the third book in the Robert Langdon takes Robert through Washington D.C. as he tries to save a friend, who has been taken hostage. With help from the hostage's sister, Robert unravels a secret path by the Freemasons. Long story short, Robert saves his friend gets the girl and learns truths of the Freemasons no else has.
So overall the story is typical Dan Brown. Twists and turns at every turn, switching views from each chapter. Robert does Robert stuff with figuring everything out in due time. (By the way, I can't read these without thinking of Tom Hanks being Langdon anymore).
But the one thing I want to focus on is the villain. He is by far the most compelling part of this whole book. Spoiler is he dies about 3/4ths of the book in and once he is gone, that dragging on feeling sets in. There is no trouble, no sense of urgency and the book dies off after that for me. But back to our villain. He is revealed to be Mr. Hostage's son who was once thought dead, but more like transformed into a whole different person. You learn that he came from money, went to prison, is left there by his father, fakes his death, and then tries to steal a family heirloom he feels will help him unlock the secrets of Freemasonry and being the perfect human. My one gripe is Dan Brown pretty much tells you it's not the son, and then says oh yeah it is the son. There's a difference from being sneaky, and just lying to create suspense. Oh well, but before his death, the son is cunning, stealthy, and barbaric (drowning an assistant for a key card). He is a very interesting character and you do miss him once he is killed.
Overall its an okay book, but Inferno or Da Vinci Code were better stories, but if you like U.S. History, it should kill some time for you and keep you enthralled for most the book.
So overall the story is typical Dan Brown. Twists and turns at every turn, switching views from each chapter. Robert does Robert stuff with figuring everything out in due time. (By the way, I can't read these without thinking of Tom Hanks being Langdon anymore).
But the one thing I want to focus on is the villain. He is by far the most compelling part of this whole book. Spoiler is he dies about 3/4ths of the book in and once he is gone, that dragging on feeling sets in. There is no trouble, no sense of urgency and the book dies off after that for me. But back to our villain. He is revealed to be Mr. Hostage's son who was once thought dead, but more like transformed into a whole different person. You learn that he came from money, went to prison, is left there by his father, fakes his death, and then tries to steal a family heirloom he feels will help him unlock the secrets of Freemasonry and being the perfect human. My one gripe is Dan Brown pretty much tells you it's not the son, and then says oh yeah it is the son. There's a difference from being sneaky, and just lying to create suspense. Oh well, but before his death, the son is cunning, stealthy, and barbaric (drowning an assistant for a key card). He is a very interesting character and you do miss him once he is killed.
Overall its an okay book, but Inferno or Da Vinci Code were better stories, but if you like U.S. History, it should kill some time for you and keep you enthralled for most the book.
Russ Troutt (291 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 4, 2019
It was a beautiful night in the theater, a beautiful night in the theater, would ya go see, could ya go see, won't you go see A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. No shame in saying I cried throughout this whole movie. Tom Hanks is amazing as always, but the entire cast is great. I wrote a poem after watching the documentary last year and felt like it would be fitting on this review as well.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
It's always a beautiful day in the neighborhood,
For in the worst of times you always made me see the good.
You would walk in with a smile on your face,
I knew that I was welcome at your place.
And no matter the weather,
You would put on your sweater.
Then you would sit down to put on more comfortable shoes,
Making me comfortable knowing I had a neighbor like you.
Together we would feed the fish,
Sometimes go to the kitchen and make a dish.
It was always my brain and heart that you were feeding,
As a kid you knew exactly what I was needing.
Messages would come from Mr. McFeely,
Who would show up with a speedy delivery.
When I'd hear the bell of the trolley,
I'd get excited and feel jolly.
For I knew we were off to visit our puppetry friends,
On the other side of the tunnel in make believe land.
You taught me what to do with my mad,
And that it was okay to be sad.
You helped in dealing with the bad and serious issues of the world,
But at the end of everyday in me the good you had restored.
In our daily meetings on television with me there is so much that you left,
I am special, amazing the way I am, and in the scary to be the one that helps.
It was in your words that I did find,
The key to success is being kind.
In many ways you were a savior whose love will always be savored,
Mister Rogers I will be forever grateful that you were my neighbor.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Uncharted (2022) in Movies
Feb 16, 2022
After numerous attempts which saw talent attached only to depart before filming began, “Uncharted” has finally arrived on the big screen.
The movie is based on the hit Playstation series of games by Naughty Dog and stars Tom Holland as Nathan Drake, a young man who is as adept at history as he is with pickpocketing which he uses to offset his income from Bartending.
Nathan’s brother fled the law years earlier and aside from Postcards has had no contact with him over the years. Things change when Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) arrives and recruits Nathan by showing him that he used to work with his brother. Despite misgivings and unresolved feelings; Nathan joins with Victor and finds himself in a daring caper to steal a valuable object that could unlock the key to a gold supply that has been lost for over five hundred years.
Naturally, there are others who want the money, and Nathan, Victory, and their dubious partner Chloe (Sophia Ali); as they rush around the world in one adventure after another to solve the ancient puzzles and stay one step ahead of some very deadly individuals.
The movie has elements of “National Treasure” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in terms of the quests to find ancient treasures mixed with action but keeps things in a simpler context. The focus is not on plot development, character development, or plausibility but considering the film is based on a video game, it does a good job with the source material.
There has been some controversy about the casting of Holland as Nathan is older in the game series, but he goes all-in with his performance even when the acrobatic action sequences does offer many reminders of his Spider-man role.
The action in the game is fun and over-the-top and more than once I thought I should be pushing my X and Square button to help him make the moves necessary to complete the task and survive.
The post-credit scenes offer some great possibilities for future adventures and those would be more than welcome for those looking for some no-brainer escapist entertainment.
3.5 stars out of 5.
The movie is based on the hit Playstation series of games by Naughty Dog and stars Tom Holland as Nathan Drake, a young man who is as adept at history as he is with pickpocketing which he uses to offset his income from Bartending.
Nathan’s brother fled the law years earlier and aside from Postcards has had no contact with him over the years. Things change when Victor Sullivan (Mark Wahlberg) arrives and recruits Nathan by showing him that he used to work with his brother. Despite misgivings and unresolved feelings; Nathan joins with Victor and finds himself in a daring caper to steal a valuable object that could unlock the key to a gold supply that has been lost for over five hundred years.
Naturally, there are others who want the money, and Nathan, Victory, and their dubious partner Chloe (Sophia Ali); as they rush around the world in one adventure after another to solve the ancient puzzles and stay one step ahead of some very deadly individuals.
The movie has elements of “National Treasure” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” in terms of the quests to find ancient treasures mixed with action but keeps things in a simpler context. The focus is not on plot development, character development, or plausibility but considering the film is based on a video game, it does a good job with the source material.
There has been some controversy about the casting of Holland as Nathan is older in the game series, but he goes all-in with his performance even when the acrobatic action sequences does offer many reminders of his Spider-man role.
The action in the game is fun and over-the-top and more than once I thought I should be pushing my X and Square button to help him make the moves necessary to complete the task and survive.
The post-credit scenes offer some great possibilities for future adventures and those would be more than welcome for those looking for some no-brainer escapist entertainment.
3.5 stars out of 5.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Dark Tower (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
10 years in the making
A film adaptation of Stephen King’s wildly successful Dark Tower novels has been rumoured for over a decade. In 2007, J.J. Abrams was attached to direct the film but dropped out in December 2009.
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Then, in 2010, veteran director Ron Howard was to head the project, but that fell through in 2015. Finally, by June 2015 the film entered full-steam ahead production with Danish filmmaker Nikolaj Arcel at the helm.
So, 10 years on from the first murmurings of a Dark Tower film were discovered, what is the finished product like? And does it capture the wonder of that eight-novel behemoth by King?Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last Gunslinger, is locked in an eternal battle with Walter O’Dim (Matthew McConaughey), also known as the Man in Black. The Gunslinger must prevent the Man in Black from toppling the Dark Tower, the key that holds the universe together. With the fate of worlds at stake, two men collide in the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Unfortunately, this troubled production has resulted in a film that’s biggest sin is its averageness. There’s not a single thing about The Dark Tower that stands out as unique, even with charismatic stars like Matthew McCounaughey and Idris Elba at the helm.
The two of them perform well with the overtly expositional dialogue and Elba just reeks of charisma, despite the dross he unfortunately has to spout from time to time. Newcomer Tom Taylor is fine, but it pains me to say it, just a little bit bland.
The plot is nigh on impossible to understand for those who haven’t read King’s books with a story that never fully explains what the titular tower even does. How on earth can a film enter production without a script that fully describes such a vital plot point? It’d be like Mad Max: Fury Road never actually featuring Max, just referencing him occasionally.
Elsewhere, Tom Holkenborg’s score is bland, the special effects just about as average as you can get and the cinematography uninspiring. This is such a shame, because moments of excellence shine through.
The action is choreographed to a good standard and the sequences in which Elba and Taylor visit Earth are an enjoyable fish-out-of-water style distraction from an otherwise disappointing script. Think Thor on Earth but in NYC rather than New Mexico.
Ultimately though, films like this get me a little angry and I feel frustrated just writing this review. With eight books in which to take nuggets of story from, the film just kind of plods along for 95 minutes. I’m not normally one for suggesting a movie be longer, but The Dark Tower really did need an extra 30 minutes at least to flesh out the characters and plot.
Overall, despite two commanding performances from its lead stars, The Dark Tower is a royal mess. In a year that has featured numerous disappointing sequels, Sony could’ve kicked things up a gear with something completely new. In the end, we’re left with a film as bland and average as you can possibly get. What a shame.
Let’s just hope that It is the King adaptation we’ve been waiting for.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/08/19/the-dark-tower-review-10-years-in-the-making/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Knight and Day (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
Knight and Day, directed by James Mangold (previous director of 3:10 to Yuma and Walk the Line), is an uninspiring, uninteresting action movie. Getting both of those words to work with the phrase “action movie” is quite a challenge, but somehow, through a group effort, it was pulled off. The movie itself gets boring primarily because the Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz have little to no chemistry between them both. Useless action sequences merely add to the feeling that all those involved were ruining a great premise for an action/date movie.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.
The plot of the movie started out fun and original, but again, the lack of a spark between the two leads just led to disinterest. The director made ample use of what I’ll call the “invisible montage,” wherein one of the main characters is semi-conscious, and what happens to them is revealed in a series of blurred, but outlandishly crazy situations only a few seconds in length and increasing in surrealism. This was a clever, if overused technique, but oftentimes the entire movie felt like longer episodes of these montages, with little reason for each to be happening other than to fill the quota for requisite action sequences. Because of some poor foreshadowing in the beginning of the film, even the finale became extremely predictable and had no weight.
Tom Cruise, playing the bizarrely comic spy Roy Miller, manages to pull his weight in his role. Cruise’s special kind of natural crazy is actually an advantage to the character he is playing. His unpredictability and his utter charm kept me, at the very least, entertained throughout the film.
Cameron Diaz, playing clueless midwesterner June Havens is obviously the weak link here. She can’t seem to keep up with Cruise’s character on screen, and aside from a few cutesy moments in the film, is outclassed by her co-star, and often by members of the supporting cast as well. Diaz doesn’t have a reputation for doing in-depth character studies of her portrayals, but the very least she could do is drop the same confused face she uses for most of the movie.
Together, Cruise and Diaz lack the chemistry that would have made this a decent movie without forcing the audience to shut off the emotional parts of their brains. In fact, the key make-out scene between the two of them was so clichéd as to be boring. Looking back at the entire movie, I believe that after their first few minutes together, the rest of their interactions just felt forced.
As for the rest of the cast, I have no special complaints or accolades, but I would like to single out one individual, and say that I would have loved to see more of Peter Sarsgaard. It’s immediately obvious that knows what he is doing on screen, and he deserved a much larger role than the one given to him.
In summary, Knight and Day is definitely worth skipping out on. Wait a week and soon enough some real 4th of July action blockbusters will be coming out. We’ll be sure to let you know which ones are the real deal and which ones are the duds. It’s just too bad this one was a dud, because it definitely had a lot of potential.