Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hotel Artemis (2018) in Movies
Feb 10, 2019
Not as interesting as it wanted to be
On my airplane ride from Mpls to San Diego I was able to catch up with gritty, action-noir thriller BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE and was really surprised by how much I enjoyed it. So, I was excited to see that another gritty,, action-noir film, HOTEL ARTEMIS was showing on the flight back.
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Well...HOTEL ARTEMIS is no EL ROYALE and maybe that's not fair to Artemis, for I was constantly comparing the two films, so let me see if I can separate the 2 and hold HOTEL ARTEMIS up to it's own scrutiny.
Telling the tale of a JOHN WICK-type world where - instead of a safehouse Hotel for crooks, the HOTEL ARTEMIS is a safehouse HOSPITAL for crooks where the rules are that the crooks cannot hurt each other on the premises. When a riot breaks out in downtown Los Angeles, the rules go out the window and mayhem - and violence - ensue.
Well...this film is no JOHN WICK either. Oh shoot, I've done it again. I've compared this film to another film.
And that's the problem with HOTEL ARTEMIS, it treads ground that has been trod better - and with more style - before. So this film, no matter how well intention-ed, falls short in originality, style and substance. I was still entertained, but not as entertained as I was by JOHN WICK or EL ROYALE.
Jodie Foster (in her first acting role since 2013's ELYSIUM) stars as the person who runs the Artemis. She has a mysterious background (of course) and runs the Artemis with an emotional-less efficiency. Her performance is quirky and interesting and almost holds the film together - almost. She is joined by Sterling K. Brown, Charlie Day, Brian Tyree Henry and Sofia Boutella as patients in the Hotel - none of which were interesting or unusual. They all were playing variants of the characters they usually play, almost as if Director/Writer Drew Pearce said "Get my a Charlie Day-type and a Sterling K. Brown-type", and the Casting Director thought they "scored" by getting the original person - each of whom looks like they are coasting through this film at about 70% output.
Only Dave Bautista shines as the "Health Care Professional" who works with Foster. He brings an interesting charisma to his character and was almost the high point in the film.
Almost. All of the performances pale in comparison to the Mob Boss who shows up about 2/3 of the way through the film. This character is talked about in reverential and scary terms throughout the film. The build-up was huge for this character and I was prepared for the inevitable let down when the mob boss finally shows up, but when the elevator door opens up and I saw that is was Jeff Goldblum in "full Goldblum" mode, I was thrilled and he did not disappoint. He commanded the screen at a time that the film was getting tiresome and he wound up the characters, the energy of the film and the action to help it ride to its inevitable, bloody conclusion.
Ultimately, Pearce delivered a solid B- film, one that has moments of quirk and interest, but set against a backdrop - and supporting actors - that are subdued and not memorable. This is a cardinal sin for this kind of film, instead of subduing those parts, Pearce needed to enhance those and he just plainly did not.
If you want to see a good, stylized, gritty action film, with interesting locales and supporting players, check out JOHN WICK or BAD TIMES AT THE EL ROYALE. If you've seen these, HOTEL ARTEMIS is fine, but the other two do it better.
Letter Grade: B-
6 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Godzilla vs. Kong (2021) in Movies
Apr 29, 2021
Monsters! Yay! Small screen... booooooo!
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html
Godzilla and Kong come head to head in a vicious battle as the humans embark on a mission to discover the ultimate power source.
I won't harp on this point too much because we're nearly at the point where I won't have to... hopefully... but this needs the big screen. You need that experience to get the full effect.
Monsters fight... do we need any story? I didn't. Which is just as well because I wouldn't be able to tell you what specifically happened apart from what I wrote in the synopsis.
You could have had this film without the humans, or as a human focus film with the monsters just lurking in the background of the whole thing. (Though I don't think anyone would care about the latter.) The monsters could easily have done a film without the humans, there's only actually one point where they're needed, and that was quite frankly dubious.
Let's talk about those humans, but where to start? The film needed to commit to either being a companion to the last film or being a new film in the franchise. So far all the others have been quite independent of each other in comparison. It may not be a popular opinion, but I would have opted for a new film... and that means no Millie Bobby Brown and no Kyle Chandler (who was quite frankly underused anyway).
My definite highlight was Brian Tyree Henry in his role as the conspiracy podcaster, and I really enjoyed that whole thread. But it definitely could have been switched up a bit and resulted in a much more believable discovery sequence in the plot. That was quite a big thing in the film, when giant monster events are more believable than human ones, you need to rethink what you're doing.
As much as I love Alexander Skarsgård, I cannot tell you much of anything about his role. He's usually always an enjoyable actor, but even that couldn't save this bland character. So much so, that when I listened to a podcast on this film and they mentioned him, I went "oh yeah, he was in it".
My main take away was that most characters had very little development, and I know I was there for the monsters, but the humans needed to not be throwaways for the amount of time they spent on screen.
I'm not going to go into the effects, they were great, and I loved them just as much as in King of the Monsters. The colours were amazing.
I'm very pleased I didn't spot spoilers for the film before seeing it. The reveals were well done and I enjoyed some of the moments that came from them, but it leads me to something I've been pondering...
This sequence of films feels wrong, Had Godzilla vs. Kong been before King of the Monsters then you'd have been presented with the perfect way to introduce more creatures, but the character dynamics would not have been right with that shuffle. There are so many possibilities, that going over them would take way too long.
For a title that highlights Godzilla before Kong, it's oddly weighted, Kong is a much bigger feature than G-zee is. He gets his own personality and a bit more heart, and it was nice to see him become a new person... ape... giant fuzzball. I can't help but be a little sad that one of his moments from the original wasn't duplicated in all its glory here.
Overall it's a fun creature feature and the action is epic as expected, with some twists thrown in if you managed to avoid the spoilers. While I really do love moments from Godzilla vs. Kong, I'm not sure it's better than KotM, but it's well worth the watch either way.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/04/godzilla-vs-kong-movie-review.html