Search
Search results
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated The Signal (2014) in Movies
Apr 30, 2018
Meh
Three college students get more than what they bargained for when they try to track down a computer genius that hacked their computers and end up fighting for their lives instead.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 4
The characters harbored no depth whatsoever. As a result there was never a point in the film where I cared about what happened to any of them. They were stale, moving about the film aimlessly. The only time they were remotely interesting was towards the end and I won't spoil why.
Not only did they bore me, they infuriated me at the same time. The decision-making of main character Nic (Brenton Thwaites) was just maddening. How he repeatedly found himself in the same perilous situations blew my mind. At one point, I remember saying, "At this point, you deserve what happens." You know it's going to be a long film when the main character can't win you over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 4
While there are some points of intrigue, the film seems to bumble along for the most part with much ado about nothing. You recognize that there is a mystery unfolding, but the terrible character development didn't help to raise my level of caring. The two action sequences that are worthwhile don't redeem the film as a whole.
Genre: 4
I love sci-fi. There are too many films to count that have helped shape the genre. When it comes to sci-fi, this ranks towards the bottom of the barrel for me. There are no real points of connection that gave it the spark it needed to capture my interest. The true sci-fi elements come too little too late.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Watching this film is like watching a baby trying to walk, but not quite as cute. You're waiting for the film to collapse at any moment due to its shaky foundation and then you get to a point where you say, "Just be done already." After about the fourth or fifth eyeroll, I was beyond ready for the film's conclusion.
Plot: 3
Just dumb. Do I need to expand on this? The story has enough holes to make swiss cheese jealous. Sure, things became less confusing as the story progressed, but the answers given were beyond far-fetched. I think a stronger story overall is what could have turned the tides of the entire film.
Resolution: 6
From a visuals standpoint, the ending was pretty cool. From a justifiable and satisfaction-level standpoint? Going to take a hard pass. I won't spoil the ending, but I'll just say the payoff is far from worth it. Interesting yes...but incomplete.
Overall: 56
Even before the ending brought the film to a necessary close, there were so many points along the way director William Eubank could have tweaked to improve this film. Alas, it didnt seem to be worth his time and neither should this film be for yours.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 5
Characters: 4
The characters harbored no depth whatsoever. As a result there was never a point in the film where I cared about what happened to any of them. They were stale, moving about the film aimlessly. The only time they were remotely interesting was towards the end and I won't spoil why.
Not only did they bore me, they infuriated me at the same time. The decision-making of main character Nic (Brenton Thwaites) was just maddening. How he repeatedly found himself in the same perilous situations blew my mind. At one point, I remember saying, "At this point, you deserve what happens." You know it's going to be a long film when the main character can't win you over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 4
While there are some points of intrigue, the film seems to bumble along for the most part with much ado about nothing. You recognize that there is a mystery unfolding, but the terrible character development didn't help to raise my level of caring. The two action sequences that are worthwhile don't redeem the film as a whole.
Genre: 4
I love sci-fi. There are too many films to count that have helped shape the genre. When it comes to sci-fi, this ranks towards the bottom of the barrel for me. There are no real points of connection that gave it the spark it needed to capture my interest. The true sci-fi elements come too little too late.
Memorability: 7
Pace: 5
Watching this film is like watching a baby trying to walk, but not quite as cute. You're waiting for the film to collapse at any moment due to its shaky foundation and then you get to a point where you say, "Just be done already." After about the fourth or fifth eyeroll, I was beyond ready for the film's conclusion.
Plot: 3
Just dumb. Do I need to expand on this? The story has enough holes to make swiss cheese jealous. Sure, things became less confusing as the story progressed, but the answers given were beyond far-fetched. I think a stronger story overall is what could have turned the tides of the entire film.
Resolution: 6
From a visuals standpoint, the ending was pretty cool. From a justifiable and satisfaction-level standpoint? Going to take a hard pass. I won't spoil the ending, but I'll just say the payoff is far from worth it. Interesting yes...but incomplete.
Overall: 56
Even before the ending brought the film to a necessary close, there were so many points along the way director William Eubank could have tweaked to improve this film. Alas, it didnt seem to be worth his time and neither should this film be for yours.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Jungle Book (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A New Classic
There’s an old saying; “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, and that was the kind of reaction many people had towards Disney’s live-action remake of The Jungle Book.
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
Helmed by Iron Man director, Jon Favreau, it certainly garnered a mixed response come its first trailer release late last year. But what is the finished product like? And are we looking at a new classic?
Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book is one of the most recognisable tales ever, despite its wafer thin plot, and the 1967 Disney animation is faithful to the first, and unfortunately also the latter.
We join this film in the midst of the action, as our young hero Mowgli (played by an unbelievably good Neel Sethi) learns how to run with his family – an adoptive pack of wolves. As the story progresses, Mowgli meets a whole host of friendly, and not so friendly, jungle animals as he strives to find just who he is.
This is a much darker interpretation of the classic story than we have been used to. There are scenes here that are genuinely terrifying, helped in part by the breath-taking CGI used to render the animals, with one infamous tiger in particular being the stuff of nightmares.
Speaking of which, an all-star cast that includes Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson, Idris Elba, Christopher Walken and Lupita Nyong’o lend their voices to fan favourites like Bagheera, Baloo, Kaa, Shere Khan, King Louie and Raksha. The vocal performances from each are sublime with Murray being a particular highlight with his comedic persona fitting perfectly with Baloo.
The jungle is brought to the screen in such detail that each frame is brimming with creatures, plants and life. In 3D, it is one of the most magnificent settings ever put to film as vibrant colours make the eyes dance with excitement. It lives and breathes right before your very eyes.
Then there’s the soundtrack. It’s true that the majority of the animation’s songs failed to make the cut, but looking back, it was only Bare Necessities that made any sort of impact and thankfully this survives, receiving a thundering orchestral backing track in the process. Christopher Walken’s gangster-like singing gives I Wanna Be Like You a whole new edge.
Nevertheless, it does, at times feel like Jon Favreau is going through the motions with the rest of the story – setting Mowgli up for one big set piece after another, though a few nice additions keep the plot flowing right up until the harrowing and beautifully filmed finale.
Overall, Disney has another classic on their hands. The Jungle Book is one of the most spectacular and breath-taking films ever put to the big screen. From a magnificent score to exceptional voice acting, it’s practically perfect in every way.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/16/a-new-classic-the-jungle-book-review/
AmyBee (4 KP) rated We Need to Talk About Kevin in Books
Sep 5, 2018
WARNING - SPOILERS AHEAD!!! ALSO, THIS REVIEW IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO IF PARTS DON'T MAKE SENSE, WORRY NOT, I'LL BE BACK TO FINISH IT LATER!
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
I quite liked this psychological family/crime drama although I did think it dragged on quite a bit with a LOT of unnecessary information. I understand that we are meant to be inside Eva's head, experiencing and feeling everything that she does/did but there is still a hell of a lot in there that could easily have been omitted with no harm to the rest of the story. On the other hand, this approach helps if we want to read the story like a 'stream of consciousness' style of narrative.
That said, it was still enjoyable if a little tedious at times due to my above point and I absolutely was not prepared for the ending!
Several people asked on Quora whether the younger sister harmed herself with the cleaning fluid on purpose, which made it very clear to me that some readers have fundamentally misunderstood the entire story, and this makes me wonder if they have a different view altogether on the ending - who do they see as being responsible for the murders? Kevin? Kevin's mother? Or, a combination of the actions of each character and toxic social/familial environments which ignored and subsequently exacerbated the poor mental health of several characters, encouraged cycles of abuse, revenge and retaliation. My guess is that they entirely and wrongly blame Kevin.
Shriver has written this novel very cleverly, as when we think about each character's transgressions out of context, we all know what is wrong and who is responsible; however this is written in such a way that it encourages the reader to pick a character to blame, providing arguments for and against each one along the way. In real life, this would never happen, as we do not get this kind of depth of insight into the lives of mass murderers. We simply blame the killer first and foremost, maybe looking briefly in disdain at his neglectful family.
In this novel, it isn't as easy to simply blame Kevin. He may be the killer, but there are so many more mitigating factors to consider.
His mother's narcissism makes her unable to see or accept her role in the actions of her very sick son. She sees him as "bad" and that's just not true. Even worse is that she treats him as though he is just bad rather than extremely ill.
I do wonder also, if the author got any backlash for writing this on the back of all the school shootings there has been in the US since the 1990's? Did people think this was an opportunistic move in the same way that they lambasted Emma whats-her-name for writing ROOM after the Josef Fritzl scandal?
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
“Dreams come true. So do nightmares.” Dea Donahue has spent her entire life travelling from one state to another, starting school after school… and walking other people’s dreams in order to survive. Dea, like her mother, is a dream walker, but she must keep this a secret from everyone else. She must follow the rules: don’t walk a person’s dream more than once, don’t let the dreamer see you; otherwise the monsters will find you. Or so Dea’s eccentric mother says.
Dea’s mother is a very paranoid person, afraid of many things particularly mirrors, and has a strange obsession for clocks. At any moment she may decide they need to pack up and leave, but Dea has had enough. Especially now that she has met Connor, the first boy to ever treat her nicely, the first boy she could call a friend. But when Dea’s mother goes missing, Dea needs to take a closer look at her mother’s obscure fears in order to track her down. At the same time there are rumours going around suggesting that Connor may not be the nice guy Dea thinks he is.
<i>Dreamland</i> is both a fantasy novel and murder mystery. It is as though Robert L. Anderson has written two different stories and then seamlessly merged them together. The main narrative focuses on Dea’s predicament but Connor’s life is constantly present underneath it. The real life quality to the story line makes the incidents Dea experiences all the more creepy.
Part three of the book becomes more fantasy-like which is a little confusing and difficult to see the setting in the way the author perceives it, however the narrative soon returns to the real world and progresses on with Connor’s story. It is not until this point that the reader realizes that <i>Dreamland</i> is part murder mystery.
As a whole, <i>Dreamland</i> is a gripping read that is difficult to put down. Readers are plagued with questions and anticipations as they wait to find out why Dea can dream walk, what the significance of the mirrors and clocks are, and what happened to Dea’s mother. Once these are resolved a whole bunch of new questions crop up.
The ending is mostly satisfying although it is not completely clear what happens next. Although the reader knows where Dea and Connor both end up, it is largely up to our own interpretation as to what their lives are like once the story ends.
<i>Dreamland</i> is definitely a worthy young adult book to read. It is different to other novels in the genre and brings a whole new concept to the table. I expect this book to rise in popularity rather quickly – and if it does not? Well, lots of people are missing out!
“Dreams come true. So do nightmares.” Dea Donahue has spent her entire life travelling from one state to another, starting school after school… and walking other people’s dreams in order to survive. Dea, like her mother, is a dream walker, but she must keep this a secret from everyone else. She must follow the rules: don’t walk a person’s dream more than once, don’t let the dreamer see you; otherwise the monsters will find you. Or so Dea’s eccentric mother says.
Dea’s mother is a very paranoid person, afraid of many things particularly mirrors, and has a strange obsession for clocks. At any moment she may decide they need to pack up and leave, but Dea has had enough. Especially now that she has met Connor, the first boy to ever treat her nicely, the first boy she could call a friend. But when Dea’s mother goes missing, Dea needs to take a closer look at her mother’s obscure fears in order to track her down. At the same time there are rumours going around suggesting that Connor may not be the nice guy Dea thinks he is.
<i>Dreamland</i> is both a fantasy novel and murder mystery. It is as though Robert L. Anderson has written two different stories and then seamlessly merged them together. The main narrative focuses on Dea’s predicament but Connor’s life is constantly present underneath it. The real life quality to the story line makes the incidents Dea experiences all the more creepy.
Part three of the book becomes more fantasy-like which is a little confusing and difficult to see the setting in the way the author perceives it, however the narrative soon returns to the real world and progresses on with Connor’s story. It is not until this point that the reader realizes that <i>Dreamland</i> is part murder mystery.
As a whole, <i>Dreamland</i> is a gripping read that is difficult to put down. Readers are plagued with questions and anticipations as they wait to find out why Dea can dream walk, what the significance of the mirrors and clocks are, and what happened to Dea’s mother. Once these are resolved a whole bunch of new questions crop up.
The ending is mostly satisfying although it is not completely clear what happens next. Although the reader knows where Dea and Connor both end up, it is largely up to our own interpretation as to what their lives are like once the story ends.
<i>Dreamland</i> is definitely a worthy young adult book to read. It is different to other novels in the genre and brings a whole new concept to the table. I expect this book to rise in popularity rather quickly – and if it does not? Well, lots of people are missing out!
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated The Captor (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
2019 certainly seems to be the year of Ethan Hawke slaying it in movies! The Kid was a powerhouse performance enough to warrant and the year off but then The Captor is released and once again. Wow. Ethan Hawke only goes and blows the bloody doors off this real-life true story about a bank robbery in Stockholm. This is our The Captor review.
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
It’s 1973 and Lars Nystrom (Hawke) walks into a bank in Stockholm firing a rifle and takes two staff members hostage. Demanding $1m, a blue Mustang and the release of Gunnar Sorensson (Mark Strong) a famous bank robber. What transpires over the next few hours is beyond belief and it’s difficult to even comprehend that most of this actually happened in real life!
Starring an all-star cast of Hawke, Mark Strong and Noomi Rapace The Captor has cult classic written all over it. Hawke plays this bat shit crazy robber who’s jumped in way above his head. The performances all round not only support Hawke’s center stage dominance but they add depth to the story. We have moments of relaxation in the vaults as character arcs are developed and relationships formed. It really is a film that’s all guns blazing one minute, hilarious comedic moments the next and then tones down and becomes level headed the next.
Director and screenwriter Robert Budreau never over embellish any scenes or characters. We really see both sides of Nystrom’s (Hawke) motives and back story. A man so up front with bravado when push comes to shove but a character of layers with a vulnerable and kind-nature hiding inside. The latter of those personality traits leads to one of the captors in question falling for her captor. Stockholm Syndrome explains this very phenomenon and in the US the movie is actually titled ‘Stockholm’ before being renamed to The Captor here in the UK.
Mark Strong rocks the double denim as Gunnar Sorensson and acts like a brother of sorts to Hawke’s Nystrom. It’s great watching the scenes between the police throughout as they scramble to try and meet Nystrom’s ludicrous demands. Gunnar’s intentions are never clear or really explained throughout. He’s just happy to be out of jail if albeit with an ulterior motive.
I feel as thou the direction of the movie is trying to put us in the shoes of the hostages. The very same hostages that in real life never testified against their captors. They’re portrayed as the rebellious force with good motives whilst the police are portrayed as the bad guys who want to make them pay. Noomi Rapace plays the emotional anchor of the movie and the bond that develops between her and Nystrom is palpable.
“This movie has cult classic written all over it”
There’s no psychological explanation about the phenom that is Stockholm Syndrom it’s just a routine, tootin good time!
https://backtothemovies.com/the-captor-review-a-cult-classic-ethan-hawke-at-his-finest/
Darren (1599 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
Characters – Sidney has made a career in books after the events in the films, she is completing her latest book tour right where it all started. With her back in town the killings start up again, Sidney must be the role model for her cousin who is going through the same situation she once did. Gale is now married to Dewey, she has given up the spotlight, but craves getting back into the field with the new killings offering her the chance. Dewey is now the sheriff who must now control the situation before it gets out of hand. We get the new potential victims or suspects here with Jill being Sidney’s cousin always tired of being in the shadow of her more famous family member, Kirby the rebellious teenager, Robbie who is filming every moment of his life for a reality YouTube network and Charlie is the leader of the film club. These characters do fit around the moulds of the original teens too.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
Performances – Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette all return giving us good performances without needing to bring anything new to the performances. Of the new cast members nobody comes off in a shining performance which can disappoint in places as we have a wonderful set of talents in the film.
Story – The story here brings back our original characters just as a new killing spree has started in the area where it all started, with a new generation of victims and horror fans. The idea for this story comes from the idea that we have too many sequels or reboots, which does help take away the serious nature from the film, the Ghostface does seem flat for the most part because they seem to get mixed into being too intense without a reason behind the killings. Of course this is more about poking fun with the meta of everything in the horror genre which is does achieve.
Horror/Mystery – The horror in this film comes from the slasher angle, only this time we get a bloodier version of the kills showing the change in the genre. The mystery in this film comes from just who the killer is going to be this time, though we don’t get enough signs this time.
Settings – The film returns to the original town which does help with the idea of a reboot sequel piss take that we are dealing with.
Special Effects – The effects are the most disappointing side of this film because we have moments of CGI that don’t look as true as the practical moments.
Scene of the Movie – Deputy Judy being like Dewey is the funniest moments.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The kids are not really likeable.
Final Thoughts – This is a solid look at the horror genre with the countless sequels and remakes that we are seeing, it brings back enough relevant characters back but does fail to give us enough interest new ones.
Overall: Simple fun sequel.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Taking Lives (2004) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Taking Lives starts as we see a young man kill another young man to steal his identity, years later a body is discovered in Canada which leads to the local French-Canadian police to call in FBI profiler Illeana (Jolie) to help with the new mystery body. Things take a turn when a man Costa (Hawke) believes he interrupted the next attempted murder before the killer is finished dealing with the body.
When the police learn this killer has been killing and stealing identities the case takes a turn and now they must figure out who the latest victim is and who he has become.
Thoughts on Taking Lives
Characters – Illeane Scott is an FBI Profiler bought in to help with the case of a killer that is stealing identities of the people he is murdering, she gets the profile correct and wants to had home after starting to become interested in one of the key witnesses. Costa is a key witness who interrupts one of the murders before the killer can complete his plan, he gives the information to track the killer. Hart is a man that soon enters Costa’s life after the incident making him the prime suspect as the killer.
Performances – Angelina Jolie is solid enough in this leading role which disappoints because we know she can be a fantastic cop figure. Ethan Hawke struggles with his role too which is only really filled with disappointment as he never convinces in his witness role. Kiefer Sutherland disappoints because we know how good he can be and want to see him more often in a film.
Story – The story is a FBI agent needing to help track down a serial killer who steals identity, yeah these are usually entertaining to watch but this just doesn’t reach the levels of mystery it needs, this might be because this is a repeat viewing and I know the ending, but there are never really any hints or suspects to work with through the film. the film lacks the true tension needed in a film that is filled with twisted crimes going on.
Crime/Mystery – The crime is interesting for a killer to be acting the way they do, the weakest part is the mystery as we just don’t meet enough potential suspects.
Settings – The film is sent in a big city which plays into the idea that someone could steal and identity and kill someone without people noticing someone going missing.
Special Effects – The effects are good because we get to see practical effects when it comes to the kills and aftermath from them.
Scene of the Movie – The lift opening.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough suspects.
Final Thoughts – This is a crime thriller that lacks the punch to make it stand out from the crowded market, we always need a large group of suspects, but this didn’t give us enough, while it did create a great killer.
Overall: Lacklustre crime thriller
When the police learn this killer has been killing and stealing identities the case takes a turn and now they must figure out who the latest victim is and who he has become.
Thoughts on Taking Lives
Characters – Illeane Scott is an FBI Profiler bought in to help with the case of a killer that is stealing identities of the people he is murdering, she gets the profile correct and wants to had home after starting to become interested in one of the key witnesses. Costa is a key witness who interrupts one of the murders before the killer can complete his plan, he gives the information to track the killer. Hart is a man that soon enters Costa’s life after the incident making him the prime suspect as the killer.
Performances – Angelina Jolie is solid enough in this leading role which disappoints because we know she can be a fantastic cop figure. Ethan Hawke struggles with his role too which is only really filled with disappointment as he never convinces in his witness role. Kiefer Sutherland disappoints because we know how good he can be and want to see him more often in a film.
Story – The story is a FBI agent needing to help track down a serial killer who steals identity, yeah these are usually entertaining to watch but this just doesn’t reach the levels of mystery it needs, this might be because this is a repeat viewing and I know the ending, but there are never really any hints or suspects to work with through the film. the film lacks the true tension needed in a film that is filled with twisted crimes going on.
Crime/Mystery – The crime is interesting for a killer to be acting the way they do, the weakest part is the mystery as we just don’t meet enough potential suspects.
Settings – The film is sent in a big city which plays into the idea that someone could steal and identity and kill someone without people noticing someone going missing.
Special Effects – The effects are good because we get to see practical effects when it comes to the kills and aftermath from them.
Scene of the Movie – The lift opening.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not enough suspects.
Final Thoughts – This is a crime thriller that lacks the punch to make it stand out from the crowded market, we always need a large group of suspects, but this didn’t give us enough, while it did create a great killer.
Overall: Lacklustre crime thriller
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Feb 2, 2020
Mellow paced - nothing special
89 year old Director/Actor Clint Eastwood has mellowed with age. He seems at peace with himself and prefers to work at a pace that he sets. His latest Directing effort - RICHARD JEWELL - has that sort of mellowness. It takes it time to tell it's story with no real urgency to it.
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
It could have used some life to be injected in it.
Based on the true events of the pipe bombing in Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Summer Olympics, RICHARD JEWELL tells the story of...well...Richard Jewell - the Security Guard who was hailed as a hero for warning people about the bomb, saving many lives, while also being listed as the #1 suspect in the bombing.
Director Eastwood and Writer Billy Ray do not spend much time making the audience guess at to whether or not they think that Jewell committed the crime (he did not - the real bomber was caught in 2006), rather they spend their time showing a person who's being railroaded by the FBI and who's life is caught up in the scramble by the press to "get the story." Again...this would be more interesting if Director Eastwood would show some sort of urgency to the proceedings, but this film is paced on an even keel from start to finish, and I never got caught up, emotionally, in the events that were transpiring in front of me.
Paul Walter Hauser (Shawn Eckhardt in I, TONYA) does a "fine enough" job as the titular character - but it isn't anything special and since the viewer is spending almost every scene with him "fine enough" isn't good enough. Adding to my disappointment are the portrayals by John Hamm (as an FBI Agent) and Olivia Wilde (as a Newspaper Reporter). Both of these performances border on caricature (especially Wilde's performance). I'm disappointed in Eastwood for letting this happen.
Injecting "some" life into this film is Kathy Bates - who was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Richard Jewell's mother - and she delivers better than the others...but not "Oscar Worthy". She does nail her "Oscar moment", but I don't think the script gives her much else to do.
The brightest spot in this film - by far - is the portrayal of Richard Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant, by Sam Rockwell and the performance of Nina Ariande as Bryant's Secretary/Girlfriend. If anyone should have been nominated for an Oscar for their performance in this film, it is Rockwell - his is the best one in the film and Ariande plays off him wonderfully well. I sat up a little taller in my seat whenever these two had a scene together.
But that's about it. It's a pretty "meh" movie - professionally made and paced deliberately and mellowly - like Clint Eastwood. But not like an Oscar contending film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
JT (287 KP) rated The Intouchables (2012) in Movies
Mar 17, 2020
Beautifully acted (2 more)
Well-directed
Heart warming
A foreign film that everyone should watch
I don’t think there has been one foreign film that I have watched that I have not liked or one that has not moved me in some way. It’s good to be able to pull away from mainstream Hollywood films and delve into another language.
This time I went for a heartwarming tale about a French aristocrat and a man from the projects who form an unlikely bond. Driss (Omar Sy) struggles in life, he lives at home with a large extended family and does his best to make ends meet.
Looking to show the benefits office that he is trying to find work so he can claim is not the easiest way to make money. On the other side, Philippe (François Cluzet) is dependent on everyone in his life, since a paragliding accident left him paralyzed from the neck down.
During an interview process to find his next carer in which Driss applies for the pair seemingly hit it off, and so begins a wonderful and awe-inspiring story. Driss who has never really needed to take responsibility after being pushed out on the street by his Aunt finds a new companion in Philippe.
Philippe too has found someone to share a smile with again, a laugh and most importantly someone that does not pity him which he feels is the most important. There is no particular story in this to adhere to, it’s about the growing relationship between two different people from opposite ends of the financial spectrum and how important they realise they are to each other.
Driss has to come to grips with the lifestyle that Philippe leads, how he has to be on call at every hour of the day, but living inside the large Parisian mansion he gets a taste of what his life is like to be wealthy and to seemingly have it all.
When Driss discovers that Philippe has an epistolary relationship with a woman he forces him to speak to her on the phone as opposed to the continual writing of letters, even going so far as to set him up on a date. Dris and Philippe force each other to step out of their comfort zones and to realize there is so much more in life.
The film’s serious nature is broken in parts by some beautiful light-hearted comedy, Driss realizing what the rubber gloves are for, and that foot cream is not shampoo. It’s been a while since I genuinely laughed out loud at any film.
When Philippe and Driss decide it is time to part ways there is a deflating sense of sadness that their relationship is over, but both men soon discover that they need each other in their life more than ever. Based on a true story it’s a brilliantly written and well-directed film that tugs at the heartstrings but will have you smiling all the way through.
This time I went for a heartwarming tale about a French aristocrat and a man from the projects who form an unlikely bond. Driss (Omar Sy) struggles in life, he lives at home with a large extended family and does his best to make ends meet.
Looking to show the benefits office that he is trying to find work so he can claim is not the easiest way to make money. On the other side, Philippe (François Cluzet) is dependent on everyone in his life, since a paragliding accident left him paralyzed from the neck down.
During an interview process to find his next carer in which Driss applies for the pair seemingly hit it off, and so begins a wonderful and awe-inspiring story. Driss who has never really needed to take responsibility after being pushed out on the street by his Aunt finds a new companion in Philippe.
Philippe too has found someone to share a smile with again, a laugh and most importantly someone that does not pity him which he feels is the most important. There is no particular story in this to adhere to, it’s about the growing relationship between two different people from opposite ends of the financial spectrum and how important they realise they are to each other.
Driss has to come to grips with the lifestyle that Philippe leads, how he has to be on call at every hour of the day, but living inside the large Parisian mansion he gets a taste of what his life is like to be wealthy and to seemingly have it all.
When Driss discovers that Philippe has an epistolary relationship with a woman he forces him to speak to her on the phone as opposed to the continual writing of letters, even going so far as to set him up on a date. Dris and Philippe force each other to step out of their comfort zones and to realize there is so much more in life.
The film’s serious nature is broken in parts by some beautiful light-hearted comedy, Driss realizing what the rubber gloves are for, and that foot cream is not shampoo. It’s been a while since I genuinely laughed out loud at any film.
When Philippe and Driss decide it is time to part ways there is a deflating sense of sadness that their relationship is over, but both men soon discover that they need each other in their life more than ever. Based on a true story it’s a brilliantly written and well-directed film that tugs at the heartstrings but will have you smiling all the way through.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated The Revenant (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The movie The Revenant is a new release starring Leonardo DiCaprio
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.
(playing Hugh Glass), Tom Hardy (playing John Fitzgerald), Will Poulter
(playing Jim Bridger), and Forrest Goodluck (playing Glass’ half Indian
son Hawk). It is directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu and Mark L Smith.
Based on previews and ads I had seen for the film; I was really looking
forward to screening this movie.
I am a huge DiCaprio fan, and I have liked most of the recent roles I
have seen Tom Hardy in as well.
The story is based off of true events and follows a novel by Michael
Punke about an actual 19th-century incident in the days of the Western
fur trade. It involves Indian attacks, animal attacks, the struggle for
survival and vengeance.
The background and scenery in the move are breathtaking. The acting is
believable, mostly. The emotions of the characters definitely come
shining through.
Some of the camera shots that the director chooses to hone in on, are
not to my taste. There are only so many up close and personal tight
angle shots of snot running from someone’s nose in a movie that I really
care to see. One time is plenty. There are far more than one of those
types of shots though, and it sort of turned me off.
One of the major scenes involves a vicious bear attack. It was gruesome
and believable and horrifying… the entire audience gasped and squirmed
in their seats uncomfortably.
As much as I wanted to like the film, it just seemed like it dragged on
and on for me. I kept wondering when it was going to end. I’m not sure
if that was because I didn’t like some of the gorier close up shots, or
some of the bouncy camera footage (it makes me feel sick to my stomach)
or if each individual piece of the story itself was just a bit too long
which just added up throughout the movie, but I feel like I spent more
time wondering whether it was going to be over soon, than really truly
getting into the movie. In many longer movies, I am so into the story
that I don’t even notice the passage of time, but that was definitely
not the case for this film.
DiCaprio did a great job portraying a broken, beaten man trying to
survive and ultimately seeking vengeance upon the man who did him wrong,
and Tom Hardy did a great job portraying a man sucked in by greed, but
the performances couldn’t overcome the amount of time spent on getting
from one pint to the next in the film.
I would personally give this movie 2.5 out of 5 stars, but can see how
others would give it a higher rating. It just didn’t turn out to be my
cup of tea.